In the Philippine Diamond Hotel case, the Supreme Court addressed the legality of a strike staged by a union not recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative. The Court ruled the strike illegal because the union was not certified to represent the majority of the hotel’s employees. This decision clarifies the limitations on a union’s right to strike and emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal procedures for collective bargaining, impacting both labor organizations and employers in the Philippines.

Striking a Balance: Can a Minority Union Force Bargaining?

The Philippine Diamond Hotel and Resort, Inc. faced a strike by the Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union after the hotel refused to bargain with them. The union, though registered, was not certified as the exclusive bargaining agent for the hotel’s employees. This led to a dispute that questioned whether a minority union could compel an employer to engage in collective bargaining and whether the strike was a legitimate exercise of labor rights.

The core of this case revolves around the interpretation of labor laws concerning collective bargaining and the right to strike. Article 255 of the Labor Code is central to this issue, emphasizing that only a labor organization designated or selected by the majority of employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit can act as the exclusive representative for collective bargaining.

ART. 255. EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATION AND WORKERS’ PARTICIPATION IN POLICY AND DECISION-MAKING

The labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. However, an individual employee or group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer.

The union argued that it sought to bargain only for its members, citing Article 242 of the Labor Code, which outlines the rights of legitimate labor organizations. However, the Court clarified that Article 242(a), which grants legitimate labor organizations the right to act as representatives of their members for collective bargaining, must be read in conjunction with Article 255. This means that while legitimate labor organizations have rights, not all possess the right to exclusive bargaining representation. If the union does not have the support of the majority of the employees, therefore, they cannot demand the right to bargain on behalf of the employees.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and the NLRC, finding that the strike was illegal. The Court emphasized the importance of avoiding fragmentation of bargaining units to strengthen employees’ bargaining power. Allowing a minority union to bargain separately would undermine the collective bargaining process and weaken the position of non-union members.

The Court also noted that the union violated Article 264 of the Labor Code by staging a strike based on unfair labor practices (ULP) while cases involving the same grounds were still pending. This provision aims to maintain order and prevent disruptions during the resolution of labor disputes.

Furthermore, the Court found that the strikers obstructed the free ingress to and egress from the hotel, violating Article 264(e) of the Labor Code, which prohibits picketers from obstructing access to the employer’s premises.

ART. 264 (e) No person engaged in picketing shall commit any act of violence, coercion or intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer’s premises for lawful purposes, or obstruct public thoroughfares.

Given these violations, the Court affirmed the dismissal of union officers who knowingly participated in the illegal strike, in accordance with Article 264(a) of the Labor Code. However, the Court also addressed the fate of ordinary striking workers, clarifying that mere participation in an illegal strike is not sufficient grounds for dismissal. Proof of illegal acts committed during the strike is required.

In this case, the Court found evidence that some striking workers committed illegal acts, such as blocking access to the hotel and threatening guests. However, the list provided by the hotel did not specifically identify who committed which illegal acts. As a result, the Court remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter, through the NLRC, to determine the respective liabilities of the strikers. Those proven to have committed illegal acts would lose their employment status, while those not clearly shown to have done so would be reinstated.

The issue of backwages was also addressed by the Court, which established that backwages are generally not awarded during economic strikes. Even in ULP strikes, the award of backwages is discretionary and reserved for exceptional circumstances. The Court cited the principle of “a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor,” emphasizing that employees who voluntarily participate in a strike typically do not receive wages for the duration of the strike.

However, the Court acknowledged exceptions to this rule, such as when employees are illegally locked out or when the employer is guilty of the grossest form of ULP. Since none of these exceptions applied in this case, the Court ruled against awarding backwages.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeals’ decision, ordering the reinstatement of union members who did not commit illegal acts during the strike, but without backwages. If reinstatement was no longer feasible, separation pay of one month’s salary for each year of service was deemed appropriate.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the strike staged by the Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union was legal, considering that the union was not the exclusive bargaining representative of the hotel’s employees.
Why was the strike declared illegal?	The strike was declared illegal because the union was not certified as the exclusive bargaining agent and, therefore, could not demand collective bargaining rights. Additionally, the strikers obstructed access to the hotel and violated labor laws by striking while related cases were pending.
What happened to the union officers who participated in the strike?	The union officers who knowingly participated in the illegal strike were deemed to have lost their employment status, as per Article 264(a) of the Labor Code.
What about the ordinary striking workers?	Ordinary striking workers could only be dismissed if they were proven to have committed illegal acts during the strike. The case was remanded to determine who specifically committed such acts.
Were the striking workers entitled to backwages?	No, the striking workers were not entitled to backwages because the strike was an economic one, and the general rule is that backwages are not awarded in such cases, absent exceptional circumstances.
What is the significance of Article 255 of the Labor Code in this case?	Article 255 emphasizes that only a labor organization designated by the majority of employees can act as the exclusive representative for collective bargaining, limiting the rights of minority unions.
What kind of acts during the strike were considered illegal?	Illegal acts included obstructing the free ingress to and egress from the hotel, holding noise barrages, and threatening guests, which violated Article 264(e) of the Labor Code.
What was the final decision of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modifications, ordering the reinstatement (without backwages) of union members who did not commit illegal acts during the strike. If reinstatement was not feasible, separation pay was to be awarded.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures in labor disputes and clarifies the rights and responsibilities of unions and employers during strikes. It serves as a reminder that while workers have the right to strike, this right is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of the law.

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: Philippine Diamond Hotel and Resort, Inc. vs. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union, G.R. No. 158075, June 30, 2006