Understanding Employee Rights During Strikes: Key Takeaways from Solidbank vs. Gamier

SOLIDBANK CORPORATION (NOW KNOWN AS FIRST METRO INVESTMENT CORPORATION) VS. ERNESTO U. GAMIER, ET AL., G.R. NO. 159460 & 159461, NOVEMBER 15, 2010

Imagine a scenario where employees, frustrated with stalled negotiations, take to the streets to voice their concerns. Can their employer simply fire them for this? The Philippine legal landscape protects the right to strike, but it also sets boundaries. This case, Solidbank Corporation vs. Ernesto U. Gamier, delves into the complexities of employee participation in strikes and the extent to which employers can discipline or terminate employees for such actions. It clarifies when participating in a strike crosses the line from protected activity to grounds for dismissal.

At the heart of this case lies a labor dispute between Solidbank Corporation and its employees’ union. When collective bargaining negotiations hit a deadlock, the union declared a strike, leading to mass actions and work stoppages. The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) stepped in, but the employees continued their protests, resulting in their dismissal. The Supreme Court ultimately had to determine whether these dismissals were justified.

The Legal Framework Governing Strikes in the Philippines

Philippine labor law recognizes the right to strike as a fundamental tool for workers to protect their interests. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to certain limitations. The Labor Code of the Philippines defines a strike as “any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.”

Article 264(a) of the Labor Code outlines prohibited activities during a labor dispute, stating:

“No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Secretary or after certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout.”

This provision essentially means that once the government intervenes in a labor dispute, strikes are generally prohibited. However, it’s crucial to understand the nuances of what constitutes a strike and what actions are protected under the umbrella of freedom of expression.

For example, if a group of employees holds a peaceful protest outside their workplace to complain about unfair labor practices, this might be considered an exercise of their right to free expression, provided it doesn’t disrupt operations or involve violence. However, if the same protest leads to a complete work stoppage and is aimed at forcing the employer to concede to certain demands, it could be classified as an illegal strike.

Solidbank Employees’ Protest: A Detailed Case Breakdown

The events unfolded as follows:

• Deadlock: Solidbank and its employees’ union reached a stalemate in CBA negotiations.
• Mass Actions: Union members staged a series of mass actions, including a rally in front of the DOLE.
• Government Intervention: The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction and ordered both parties to cease actions that could worsen the situation.
• Protest Continues: Dissatisfied with the Secretary’s ruling, employees held a “mass leave” and protest action at the DOLE, with provincial branches boycotting work.
• Termination: Solidbank issued memos declaring the absence from work an illegal act, and eventually terminated 129 employees.

The case then went through multiple levels of the legal system:

• Labor Arbiter: Initially dismissed the complaints of some employees, but ruled in favor of the union and other dismissed employees.
• NLRC: The National Labor Relations Commission reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding the mass action to be an illegal strike.
• Court of Appeals: Overturned the NLRC’s decision, declaring the dismissals illegal, viewing the mass action as a legitimate exercise of free expression.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, emphasized the following points:

“After a thorough review of the records, we hold that the CA patently erred in concluding that the concerted mass actions staged by respondents cannot be considered a strike but a legitimate exercise of the respondents’ right to express their dissatisfaction with the Secretary’s resolution…”

The Court further stated:

“It is explicit from the directive of the Secretary in his January 18, 2000 Order that the Union and its members shall refrain from committing ‘any and all acts that might exacerbate the situation,’ which certainly includes concerted actions. For all intents and purposes, therefore, the respondents staged a strike ultimately aimed at realizing their economic demands.”

Practical Implications for Employers and Employees

This case underscores the importance of understanding the boundaries of protected labor activities. While employees have the right to express their grievances, they must do so within the bounds of the law, especially when the government has assumed jurisdiction over a labor dispute.

For employers, it highlights the need to carefully assess the nature of employee actions before imposing disciplinary measures. Terminating employees for mere participation in a strike, without evidence of illegal acts, can lead to legal repercussions.

Key Lessons:

• Know the Law: Understand the provisions of the Labor Code regarding strikes and prohibited activities.
• Assess the Action: Determine whether the employee action constitutes a strike or a legitimate exercise of free expression.
• Document Everything: Gather evidence of any illegal acts committed during the strike.
• Individual Liability: Remember that liability for illegal acts is determined on an individual basis.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What is the definition of a strike under Philippine law?

A: A strike is defined as any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.

Q: Can employees be fired for participating in a legal strike?

A: Generally, no. Mere participation in a lawful strike is not sufficient ground for termination.

Q: What constitutes an illegal strike?

A: A strike is considered illegal if it is declared after the assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor, or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the strike.

Q: What are some examples of illegal acts during a strike that can lead to termination?

A: Examples include violence, coercion, intimidation, obstruction of free ingress to or egress from the employer’s premises, and obstruction of public thoroughfares.

Q: What is the difference in liability between union officers and union members during an illegal strike?

A: Union officers who knowingly participate in an illegal strike may be terminated. However, union members can only be terminated if they commit illegal acts during the strike.

Q: Are employees entitled to backwages if they are illegally dismissed for participating in a strike?

A: Not necessarily. If the strike itself was illegal, employees may not be entitled to backwages, even if their dismissal was unjustified.

Q: What is separation pay and when is it awarded?

A: Separation pay is a monetary benefit awarded to employees who are terminated for authorized causes, such as redundancy or retrenchment. In some cases, it may also be awarded in lieu of reinstatement.

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