The High Cost of Defying a Return-to-Work Order in the Philippines

G.R. NO. 116461. JULY 12, 1996.

Imagine a scenario where employees, fueled by the conviction that their demands are just, refuse to return to work despite a government order. This decision, born out of perceived unfairness, can lead to severe consequences, including dismissal. The Supreme Court case of Allied Banking Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission delves into this very issue, highlighting the critical importance of complying with return-to-work orders issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

This case underscores that while the right to strike is constitutionally protected, it is not absolute. When the Secretary of Labor steps in to resolve a labor dispute, employees must adhere to the prescribed procedures, including returning to work. Ignoring these orders can have dire repercussions, potentially leading to the loss of employment.

Understanding the Legal Framework

The Philippine Labor Code governs labor relations and outlines the rights and responsibilities of both employers and employees. Several provisions are particularly relevant in cases involving strikes and return-to-work orders.

Article 263(g) of the Labor Code grants the Secretary of Labor and Employment the authority to assume jurisdiction over labor disputes that could significantly impact the national interest. This assumption of jurisdiction automatically enjoins any intended or ongoing strike or lockout. The law states:

“When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout…”

Furthermore, Article 264(a) specifies the consequences of engaging in illegal strikes. It states that union officers who knowingly participate in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost their employment status. The law clarifies that mere participation in a lawful strike does not constitute sufficient ground for termination.

In essence, these provisions aim to balance the rights of workers to engage in concerted activities with the need to maintain industrial peace and protect the national interest. Compliance with return-to-work orders is paramount, and defiance can result in severe penalties.

The Allied Banking Corporation Case: A Detailed Look

The Allied Banking Corporation case arose from a labor dispute between the bank and its employees’ union, the Allied Banking Employees Union-NUBE. The dispute centered on the renewal of their collective bargaining agreement, particularly the issue of wage increases.

When negotiations stalled, the union filed a notice of strike. The Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and issued a return-to-work order. Despite this order, certain union members resumed their strike, leading to acts of violence and criminal charges against some strikers.

The bank directed the striking employees to return to work by a specific deadline, but many failed to comply. Consequently, the bank issued notices of termination to those who defied the order.

Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

• December 16, 1984: The Minister of Labor and Employment assumes jurisdiction over the labor dispute, enjoining the strike.
• January 6, 1985: A return-to-work order is issued, including a P1,000 grant per employee.
• February 11, 1985: Certain union members resume the strike, leading to violence.
• February 13, 1985: The bank publishes notices directing striking employees to return to work.
• March 7, 1985: The Minister of Labor modifies the previous order, and the union lifts its picket lines.
• March 11, 1985: The bank refuses to accept returning employees, citing abandonment of work.

The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the bank, upholding the dismissal of the employees who defied the return-to-work order. The Court emphasized the importance of complying with such orders, stating:

“Regardless therefore of their motives, or the validity of their claims, the striking workers must cease and/or desist from any and all acts that tend to, or undermine this authority of the Secretary of Labor, once an assumption and/or certification order is issued.”

The Court further explained that a return-to-work order imposes a duty on employees, not merely a right. This duty must be discharged, even against the worker’s will, to allow the company to resume operations and serve the public interest.

Practical Implications for Employers and Employees

This case serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of defying return-to-work orders. It underscores the importance of understanding and adhering to labor laws and regulations.

For employers, the case provides legal support for taking disciplinary action against employees who refuse to comply with return-to-work orders. However, it’s crucial to ensure that all actions are taken in accordance with due process and with a clear understanding of the legal framework.

For employees, the case highlights the need to carefully consider the implications of participating in strikes and other concerted activities. While the right to strike is protected, it is not absolute, and compliance with lawful orders is essential to protect their employment.

Key Lessons:

• Comply with Return-to-Work Orders: Adherence to return-to-work orders issued by the Secretary of Labor is mandatory.
• Understand Legal Consequences: Defying these orders can lead to dismissal and loss of employment status.
• Seek Legal Counsel: Both employers and employees should seek legal advice to understand their rights and obligations during labor disputes.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is a return-to-work order?

A: A return-to-work order is an official directive issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, compelling striking or locked-out employees to resume their work under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.

Q: What happens if I don’t comply with a return-to-work order?

A: Non-compliance with a return-to-work order can lead to disciplinary actions, including termination of employment. Union officers who knowingly participate in an illegal strike may also lose their employment status.

Q: Is every strike considered illegal?

A: No, not every strike is illegal. However, strikes declared after the Secretary of Labor and Employment has assumed jurisdiction over a labor dispute are generally considered illegal.

Q: Can I be dismissed for simply participating in a strike?

A: Mere participation in a lawful strike is not sufficient ground for termination. However, if you knowingly participate in an illegal strike or commit illegal acts during a strike, you may be dismissed.

Q: What should I do if I believe my employer is acting unfairly during a labor dispute?

A: Seek legal counsel immediately to understand your rights and options. It’s essential to document all incidents and follow legal procedures to protect your interests.

Q: Does a return-to-work order mean the labor dispute is over?

A: No, a return-to-work order is issued to maintain the status quo while the labor dispute is being resolved. The underlying issues remain subject to negotiation or arbitration.

Q: What is the role of the Secretary of Labor and Employment in labor disputes?

A: The Secretary of Labor and Employment plays a crucial role in resolving labor disputes, including assuming jurisdiction over cases that affect the national interest, issuing return-to-work orders, and facilitating negotiations or arbitration.

ASG Law specializes in labor law and employment disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.