Union Officers Beware: Participating in an Illegal Strike Can Cost You Your Job

This case clarifies the distinct liabilities of ordinary workers and union officers regarding illegal strikes, especially slowdowns, after the DOLE Secretary assumes jurisdiction. Union officers can face termination for knowingly participating in such illegal actions, even without proof of specific illegal acts during the strike itself. This emphasizes the responsibility placed upon union leaders to uphold the law and ensure compliance with DOLE orders.

G.R. No. 178409 & G.R. No. 178434, June 08, 2011

Introduction

Imagine a company struggling to meet production targets, only to discover that its employees are intentionally slowing down their work. This scenario highlights the disruptive impact of illegal strikes, especially slowdowns, on businesses. But what happens when a union orchestrates such a strike after the government has already intervened to resolve a labor dispute? This case delves into the complexities of union officer liability in such situations, providing crucial insights for both employers and employees.

This case involves Monterey Foods Corporation and its union, Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Monterey-Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa. After a deadlock in CBA negotiations and the DOLE Secretary’s assumption of jurisdiction, the union conducted a slowdown strike. The core legal question is whether the company was justified in terminating certain union officers for their participation in the illegal slowdown.

Legal Context: Strikes, Slowdowns, and DOLE Jurisdiction

Philippine labor law recognizes the right of workers to strike, but this right is not absolute. Several legal provisions govern the conduct of strikes, particularly when the DOLE Secretary assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute. Understanding these provisions is critical to determining the legality of a strike and the potential liabilities of those involved.

A strike is defined as any work stoppage by employees as a result of an industrial dispute. A slowdown strike, unlike a traditional strike, involves employees reducing their work rate while remaining at their posts. Both are considered forms of strike under the law.

Article 264(a) of the Labor Code is central to this case. It explicitly states: “No strike or lockout shall be declared after the Secretary of Labor and Employment has assumed jurisdiction over the dispute or certified the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Any strike violating this provision will be considered an illegal strike, and the union officers who knowingly participate in the same may be declared to have lost their employment status”.

Furthermore, jurisprudence differentiates between the liability of ordinary workers and union officers in illegal strikes. While ordinary workers must be proven to have committed illegal acts during the strike to be terminated, union officers can be terminated simply for knowingly participating in the illegal strike.

Case Breakdown: Monterey Foods Corporation vs. Union Officers

The story begins with the expiration of the CBA between Monterey Foods Corporation and its union in April 2002. Negotiations for a new CBA stalled, leading the union to file a notice of strike in March 2003. Fearing disruptions to the meat industry, the company petitioned the DOLE Secretary to assume jurisdiction.

On May 12, 2003, the DOLE Secretary issued an order assuming jurisdiction and enjoining any strike. Despite this order, the union filed a second notice of strike, alleging unfair labor practices. Subsequently, the company issued notices of termination to several union officers, citing their defiance of the DOLE’s assumption order through intentional slowdowns.

The case proceeded through various stages:

• The DOLE Secretary upheld the company’s termination of 17 union officers.
• The union appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
• The CA upheld the termination of 10 officers but declared the termination of the other seven illegal.
• Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the company on most issues, emphasizing the importance of complying with DOLE orders. The Court stated, “The law is explicit: no strike shall be declared after the Secretary of Labor has assumed jurisdiction over a labor dispute. A strike conducted after such assumption is illegal and any union officer who knowingly participates in the same may be declared as having lost his employment.”

However, the Court also scrutinized the evidence against each individual union officer. “Still, the participating union officers have to be properly identified,” the Court noted, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence linking each officer to the illegal slowdown.

Practical Implications: Lessons for Unions and Employers

This case serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of disregarding DOLE orders and participating in illegal strikes. For unions, it highlights the importance of responsible leadership and adherence to legal procedures. For employers, it underscores the need for clear evidence and proper documentation when terminating union officers for participating in illegal strikes.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that union officers have a higher duty to uphold the law. Their participation in an illegal strike, even without direct evidence of illegal acts, can lead to termination. This ruling aims to deter unions from engaging in disruptive actions that undermine the authority of the DOLE and the stability of labor relations.

Key Lessons

• Comply with DOLE Orders: Once the DOLE Secretary assumes jurisdiction, all parties must cease any actions that could aggravate the dispute, including strikes or slowdowns.
• Document Everything: Employers must maintain thorough records of employee conduct, including attendance, productivity, and any instances of work slowdowns.
• Identify Participants Clearly: When terminating union officers for participating in an illegal strike, ensure that there is substantial evidence linking each individual to the illegal activity.
• Responsible Union Leadership: Union officers must ensure that their members understand the legal consequences of participating in illegal strikes and that all actions comply with the law.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What constitutes an illegal strike?

A: A strike is considered illegal if it violates specific provisions of the Labor Code, such as being conducted after the DOLE Secretary has assumed jurisdiction over the dispute or failing to comply with procedural requirements.

Q: Can ordinary workers be terminated for participating in an illegal strike?

A: Yes, but only if there is proof that they committed illegal acts during the strike.

Q: What is the difference between a strike and a slowdown?

A: A strike involves a complete work stoppage, while a slowdown involves employees reducing their work rate while remaining at their posts. Both are considered forms of strike under the law.

Q: What is the role of the DOLE Secretary in labor disputes?

A: The DOLE Secretary has the authority to assume jurisdiction over labor disputes that affect national interest, effectively halting any strike or lockout.

Q: What are the potential consequences for union officers who participate in an illegal strike?

A: Union officers can be terminated from their employment simply for knowingly participating in the illegal strike, even without proof of specific illegal acts.

Q: What is separation pay?

A: Separation pay is a monetary benefit granted to employees who are terminated for authorized causes or, in some cases, when reinstatement is not feasible after an illegal dismissal.

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