The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the rights of employees involved in illegal strikes, distinguishing between union officers and members. The Court ruled that while union officers participating in an illegal strike can be terminated, employers must still comply with due process requirements, including proper notices. Mere union members, however, are protected from termination unless they committed illegal acts during the strike. This ruling emphasizes the need for employers to balance their interests with workers’ rights to fair labor practices and due process, even in the context of illegal strikes.

Striking a Balance: When Does an Illegal Strike Justify Employee Termination?

This case originated from labor disputes involving Stamford Marketing Corp. and its related companies, along with their employees who formed the Apacible Enterprise Employees’ Union. Following the union’s formation, several employees were dismissed, leading to a series of complaints filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). These complaints alleged unfair labor practices, illegal dismissals, and various monetary claims. The companies countered by arguing that the employees had engaged in an illegal strike, justifying their termination.

The core legal question revolved around the validity of the employees’ dismissal in light of the strike’s illegality. The petitioners contended that the employees’ participation in an illegal strike warranted their termination under Article 264(a) of the Labor Code. The respondents, however, argued that their dismissal was illegal because it violated due process requirements and constituted union-busting.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while the right to strike is constitutionally recognized, it is subject to legal restrictions outlined in the Labor Code. Specifically, the Court highlighted Article 263, which mandates the filing of a notice of strike, taking a strike vote, and reporting the strike vote result to the Department of Labor and Employment. Non-compliance with these procedural steps renders a strike illegal.

“The evident intention of the law in requiring the strike notice and strike-vote report is to reasonably regulate the right to strike, which is essential to the attainment of legitimate policy objectives embodied in the law.”

The Court acknowledged that the respondent union had failed to comply with these requirements, thus confirming the strike’s illegality. However, the Court also clarified that the consequences of an illegal strike differ between union officers and mere members, citing Article 264 of the Labor Code. While union officers who knowingly participate in an illegal strike may be terminated, mere union members are protected unless they committed illegal acts during the strike.

The Court distinguished between union officers, who are expected to guide their members to respect the law, and rank-and-file members. Despite the illegality of the strike, the employer still had to follow due process for termination, which involves providing the required notices. The Court referenced Serrano v. National Labor Relations Commission to highlight the importance of proper procedure in employee termination cases. It ruled that failure to comply with the notice requirement does not invalidate the dismissal itself but makes it ineffectual. In this case, the petitioners did not comply with the notification requirements for terminating employment.

The court distinguished two employees (Julian, Tejada), determining that that they did not abandon their positions. Moreover, they could not support claims of unfair labor practices due to lack of evidence. On the topic of union officers and proper termination, in this case the court notes:

“Nothing in Article 264 of the Labor Code authorizes an immediate dismissal of a union officer for participating in an illegal strike. The act of dismissal is not intended to happen ipso facto but rather as an option that can be exercised by the employer and after compliance with the notice requirements for terminating an employee. In this case, petitioners did not give the required notices to the union officers.”

Ultimately, the Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling that union members were illegally dismissed due to a lack of evidence linking them to illegal acts during the strike. Furthermore, they were acting in good faith to secure their economic wellbeing. Questions surrounding the validity of quitclaims and the monetary awards remained intact because questions of that nature are based on findings of fact.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the respondents were validly dismissed from employment due to their participation in an illegal strike, and what their corresponding rights to backwages, separation pay, and reinstatement were.
What is the difference in treatment between union officers and members in an illegal strike?	Union officers knowingly participating in an illegal strike can be terminated, provided due process is observed. Mere union members are protected from termination unless they committed illegal acts during the strike.
What procedural steps are required before staging a strike?	The Labor Code requires the filing of a notice of strike, taking a strike vote, and reporting the strike vote result to the Department of Labor and Employment before staging a strike.
What is the effect of non-compliance with strike requirements?	Non-compliance with the procedural steps for staging a strike renders the strike illegal.
What are the due process requirements for terminating employees?	Employers must provide the required notices for terminating an employment, i.e., notice of hearing to enable them to present their side, and notice of termination, should their explanation prove unsatisfactory.
What happens if an employer fails to comply with the notice requirements for termination?	The dismissals per se are not invalid but ineffectual, and employees are entitled to backwages from the date of their invalid termination until the final judgment of the case.
Can union members be dismissed for participating in a strike?	If a mere union member did not engage in illegal acts during an illegal strike, such member does not lose their employment status and entitled to reinstatement.
Did the court change the original rulings regarding monetary claims?	No, factual findings by the NLRC and Labor Arbiter, who have relevant expertise, regarding monetary claims generally are not overturned.

This Supreme Court decision serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between protecting workers’ rights and ensuring orderly labor practices. Employers must comply with due process requirements when terminating employees, even those participating in illegal strikes. By understanding and adhering to these legal standards, both employers and employees can avoid costly disputes and promote a more harmonious workplace.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: STAMFORD MARKETING CORP. VS. JOSEPHINE JULIAN, G.R. No. 145496, February 24, 2004