This case addresses the legality of a strike staged by the Arellano University Employees and Workers Union (Union). The Supreme Court had to determine whether the strike was legal and whether the university committed unfair labor practices. Ultimately, the Court held that the strike was illegal because the Union defied a return-to-work order. However, the Court also ruled that only the union officers who participated knowingly in the illegal strike could be terminated; the other union members were ordered reinstated without backwages. This decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal procedures during strikes and the protection afforded to ordinary workers who may not be fully aware of the strike’s illegality.
When is a Strike Illegal? Examining the Boundaries of Labor Action
The central issue revolves around the legality of the strike conducted by the Union against Arellano University and the subsequent dismissal of its members. Two notices of strike were filed by the Union, alleging unfair labor practices (ULP) by the University, including interference in union activities, union busting, and contracting out services performed by Union members. The University, in turn, argued that the strike was illegal because it defied a return-to-work order issued by the Secretary of Labor. The case further considers whether the University committed unfair labor practices, warranting the strike in the first place, and whether the dismissal of all striking workers was justified.
Initially, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Union’s petition for certiorari due to procedural lapses. However, the Supreme Court, recognizing the significance of the labor dispute and the need for substantial justice, opted to review the case on its merits. The Court highlighted the amendments to Section 4 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern the period for filing petitions for certiorari, and applied the amended rule retroactively to the case, allowing the Court to proceed with its review.
The Supreme Court found that the Union’s strike was indeed illegal. The basis for this determination was the Union’s defiance of the return-to-work order issued by the Secretary of Labor. Under Article 264 of the Labor Code, employees who participate in an illegal strike may face termination of their employment. However, the Court made a critical distinction between union officers and ordinary union members. According to the provision, union officers who knowingly participate in an illegal strike may be declared to have lost their employment status. For ordinary workers, however, there must be proof that they knowingly participated in the commission of illegal acts during the strike.
The Court acknowledged that the University presented photographs showing the strikers picketing outside the university premises. However, the Court found that the University failed to identify the individuals involved or to prove that these ordinary union members engaged in any illegal acts during the strike. Consequently, the Court ruled that the dismissal of all striking union members was not justified. The Court ordered the reinstatement of the ordinary union members, without backwages, recognizing that they should not be penalized to the same extent as the union officers who led the illegal strike. However, if reinstatement was no longer feasible, the Court directed that the members should receive separation pay of one month for every year of service. The union officers were not covered by this directive, given their culpability.
Concerning the unfair labor practice charges raised by the Union, the Court concurred with the NLRC’s finding that the University had not committed any ULP. The Court highlighted that the University’s refusal to deduct penalties from the salaries of Union members was based on a reasonable interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement and the law, and there was no gross violation of the CBA. Moreover, the University’s withholding of union dues and death aid benefits was found to be in response to requests from Union members themselves, in light of their concerns regarding the Union’s management, thus the ULP case was unsubstantiated. These considerations influenced the Court’s decision to set aside the Court of Appeals’ resolutions and modify the NLRC’s decision, emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural rules and substantial evidence in labor disputes.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether the strike staged by the Union was legal and whether the University committed unfair labor practices, justifying the dismissal of all striking workers. |
| What did the Supreme Court rule regarding the legality of the strike? | The Supreme Court ruled that the strike was illegal because the Union defied a return-to-work order issued by the Secretary of Labor. |
| What is the difference in treatment between union officers and members in an illegal strike? | Union officers who knowingly participate in an illegal strike may be terminated, while ordinary union members must be proven to have knowingly participated in illegal acts during the strike to be dismissed. |
| What was the outcome for the ordinary union members who participated in the strike? | The Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of the ordinary union members without backwages, but if reinstatement is not possible, they should receive separation pay. |
| Did the Supreme Court find the University guilty of unfair labor practices? | No, the Court concurred with the NLRC’s finding that the University did not commit any unfair labor practices. |
| What did the Court say about the University’s use of 314 days as divisor in computing daily wage? | The Court found nothing wrong with it, as Sundays are unworked and unpaid, and the computation complied with the “no work, no pay” principle. |
| What legal principle is highlighted by this case? | This case emphasizes the balance between workers’ rights to strike and the need for unions to comply with legal procedures, as well as employers’ rights to protect their operations from illegal strikes. |
| What are the conditions for a valid check-off of union dues? | A valid check-off requires individual check-off authorizations submitted to the management, and the union should not impose excessive or oppressive fines. |
In conclusion, the Arellano University Employees and Workers Union case provides important clarification on the rights and responsibilities of unions and employers in labor disputes. The decision underscores the need for unions to adhere to legal procedures during strikes and safeguards the rights of ordinary workers who participate in strike actions without engaging in illegal acts. Moving forward, both unions and employers should ensure they are fully informed of their obligations and rights under the Labor Code to foster a more harmonious working environment.
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: Arellano University Employees and Workers Union vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139940, September 19, 2006
Leave a Reply