1. Ikaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa vs.
NLRC
[GR No. 91980. June 27, 1991]
1. The Union known as Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) said to
represent 4,500 employees of San Miguel Corporation, presented to the
company a demand for correction of the significant distortion in wages.
2. In that demand, the Union explicitly invoked Section 4 of RA 6727, “The
Wage Rationalization Act”, which reads as follows:
 Where the application of the increases in the wages rates under this
section results in distortions as defined under existing laws in the
wage structure within an establishment and gives rise to dispute
therein, such dispute shall first be settled voluntarily between the
parties and in the event of a deadlock, the same shall be finally
resolved through compulsory arbitration by the regional branches of
the National Labor Relations Commission having jurisdiction over the
workplace.
 It shall be mandatory for the NLRC to conduct continuous hearings
and decide any dispute arising under this section within twenty (20)
calendar days from the time said dispute is formally submitted to it
for arbitration. The pendency of a dispute arising from a wage
distortion shall not in any way delay the applicability of the increase in
the wage rates prescribed under this section.
3. The Union claims that the demand was ignored. When the Company
rejected the reduced proposal of the Union the members thereof, on their
own accord, refused to render overtime services, most especially at the
Beer Bottling Plants at Polo, starting October 16, 1989. In this connection,
the workers involved issues a joint notice reading as follows:
 Sama-samang pahayag: Kaming arawang manggagawa ng Polo
Brewery pawang kasapi ng Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) ay
nagkakaisang nagpasya na ipatupad muna ang eight hours work shift
pansamantala habang hindi ipinapatupad ng SMC Management ang
tamang Wage Distortion.
4. It appears that the employees working hours/schedule has been freely
observed by the employees for the past 5 years and due to the
abandonment of the longstanding schedule of work and reversion to the
eight-hour shift substantial losses were incurred by SMC.
5. SMC filed a complaint with arbitration branch of NLRC then before the
NLRC for the latter to declare the strike illegal.
6. Union’s contention: workers’ refusal to work beyond 8 hours was a
legitimate means of compelling SMC to correct distortion.
7. SMC: The coordinated reduction by the Union’s members of the work time
in order to compel SMC to yield to the demand was an illegal and
unprotected activity.
ISSUE: W/N the strike was legal? ILLEGAL. The strike invoking the issue of wage
distortion is illegal. The legality of these activities depends on the legality of the
purposes sought to be attained. These joint or coordinated activities may be
forbidden or restricted by law or contract.
HELD:
Among the rights guaranteed to employees by the Labor Code is that of engaging
in concerted activities in order to attain their legitimate objectives. Article 263 of
the Labor Code declares that in line with “the policy of the State to encourage free
trade unionism and free collective bargaining, x x (w)orkers shall have the right to
engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their
mutual benefit and protection.” A similar right to engage in concerted activities
for mutual benefit and protection is tacitly and traditionally recognized in respect
of employers.
More common of these concerted activities as far as employees are concerned are
strikes, picketings and boycotts:
 strikes––the temporary stoppage of work as a result of an industrial or
labor dispute
 picketing––the marching to and fro at the employer’s premises,
usually accompanied by the display of placards and other signs making
known the facts involved in a labor dispute
 boycotts––the concerted refusal to patronize an employer’s goods or
services and to persuade others to a like refusal.
As for the Employers:
 lockout––the temporary refusal to furnish work on account of a labor
dispute.
The same Article 263 provides that the “right of legitimate labor organizations to
strike and picket, and of employer to lockout, consistent with the national interest,
shall continue to be recognized and respected.” The legality of these activities is
usually dependent on the legality of the purposes sought to be attained and the
means employed therefor.
The law or contract may however forbid or restrict these joint or coordinated
activities.
LAW:
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6727 prescribes a specific, detailed and
comprehensive procedure for the correction thereof, thereby implicitly excluding
strikes or lockouts or other concerted activities as modes of settlement of the
issue.
 In cases where there are no collective agreements or recognized labor
unions, the employers and workers shall endeavor to correct such
distortions. Any dispute arising therefrom shall be settled through the
National Conciliation and Mediation Board and, if it remains unresolved
after ten (10) calendar days of conciliation, shall be referred to the
appropriate branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). It
shall be mandatory for the NLRC to conduct continuous hearings and
decide the dispute within twenty (20) calendar days from the time said
dispute is submitted for compulsory arbitration.
 The legislative intent that solution of the problem of wage distortions
shall be sought by voluntary negotiation or abitration, and not by strikes,
lockouts, or other concerted activities of the employees or management,
is made clear in the rules implementing RA 6727. Wherein wage
distortions be first settled voluntarily by the parties and eventually by
compulsory arbitration, declares that, “Any issue involving wage
distortion shall not be a ground for a strike/lockout.”
CONTRACT/CBA:
The CBA prescribes a similar eschewal of strikes or other similar or related
concerted activities as a mode of resolving disputes or controversies, it clearly
stated that settlement of “all disputes, disagreements or controversies of any kind
should be achieved by the stipulated grievance procedure and ultimately by
arbitration.”
 Hence, the Union was prohibited to declare & hold a strike or engage in a
non-peaceful concerted activities for the settlement of its controversy w/
SMC as to wage distortions or any other issue involving wages, hours of
work, conditions of employment & ER-EE relations.
 In this case, the partial strike or concerted refusal by the Union members
to follow the five-year-old work schedule which they had therefore been
observing, resorted to as a means of coercing correction of “wage
distortions,” as therefore forbidden by law and contract and, on this
account, illegal.
The wage distortion issue motivated the Union’s partial/limited strike.
 The work schedule w/ built in overtime was not forced upon them since it
was agreed b/w the company & the workers and was religiously followed
by the latter for the past 5 years w/ mutually beneficial results. Hence, it
can’t be a matter of such great prejudice to the workers as to give rise to a
controversy b/w them & the management.
The workers never asked nor were there ever any negotiations at their instance,
for a change in that work schedule prior to the strike. What really bothered them
was the issue on the wage distortion & not the number of hours. This was apparent
by the joint notice they circulated before the strike wherein they stated that they
would adopt the 8-hr work shift for a while pending the correction by the company
of the wage distortion.
Even if there was no legal prohibition & assuming it really didn’t involve the wage
distortions caused by RA 6727, the concerted activity would still be illicit because
it was expressly stated in their contract/CBA that there would be no strikes,
slowdown, boycotts or any other interference w/ the operations of the company
during the term of the CBA.
Slowdown as a “strike on the installment plan;” as a willful reduction in the rate of
work by concerted action of workers for the purpose of restricting the output of
the employer, in relation to a labor dispute; as an activity by which workers,
without a complete stoppage of work, retard production or their performance of
duties and functions to compel management to grant their demands
Slowdown is generally condemned as inherently illicit and unjustifiable, because
while the employees “continue to work and remain at their positions and accept
the wages paid to them,” they at the same time “select what part of their allotted
tasks they care to perform of their own volition or refuse openly or secretly, to the
employer’s damage, to do other work;” in other words, they “work on their own
terms.”
The question if the concerted adoption of different work schedule than that
prescribed by the management & adhered to for 5 yrs constitutes a slowdown need
not be gone into. Since the activity is contrary to law (RA 6727) & the parties’
collective bargaining agreement.