ASG Law

Tag: Strike Legality

  • Strike a Balance: Understanding Legal vs. Illegal Strikes in the Philippines

    When Strikes Cross the Line: Illegal Means and Loss of Employment

    Strikes are a powerful tool for labor unions, but in the Philippines, the line between a legal and illegal strike hinges not just on the reason for striking, but also on how the strike is conducted. This case highlights that even with valid grievances, unions can face severe consequences if they employ unlawful means, potentially leading to the loss of employment for participating members. This underscores the critical importance of adhering to legal boundaries during labor actions.

    G.R. NO. 167347, January 31, 2007: CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION AND/OR EDWIN CHUA, PETITIONERS, VS. BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA SA CHUAYUCO STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine a factory gate blocked by large stones and chains, preventing workers from entering and goods from leaving. This was the reality faced by Chuayuco Steel Manufacturing Corporation during a strike by its union, Buklod ng Manggagawa. While the union had legitimate grievances regarding unfair labor practices and refusal to bargain, their actions during the strike became their downfall. This Supreme Court case serves as a stark reminder that in labor disputes, the ends do not always justify the means. A strike, even if initiated for valid reasons, can be declared illegal if it involves prohibited activities, leading to serious repercussions for union members.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: THE RULES OF THE GAME FOR STRIKES

    Philippine labor law, while recognizing the right to strike, sets clear boundaries for its exercise. The Labor Code outlines what constitutes an illegal strike, focusing heavily on the methods employed. It’s not enough for a union to have a valid reason to strike; they must also conduct the strike within legal parameters.

    Article 264(e) of the Labor Code is particularly crucial in this case. It explicitly states:

    “(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.”

    This provision clearly prohibits strikers from resorting to violence, intimidation, or obstruction of company premises. The law aims to maintain a balance, allowing workers to voice their grievances through strikes, but preventing actions that unduly disrupt business operations or endanger individuals.

    Prior Supreme Court decisions have consistently emphasized this principle. As cited in this Chuayuco Steel case, United Seamen’s Union of The Philippines v. Davao Shipowners Association established that even if a strike’s purpose is valid, employing violence or causing injury or damage can render it illegal. Similarly, Liberal Labor vs. Phil. Can highlighted that strikes involving coercion, intimidation, and violence are unjustifiable and undermine the legal framework for peaceful labor dispute resolution.

    Furthermore, Article 264(a) of the Labor Code distinguishes between union officers and members regarding liability for illegal strikes:

    “. . . Any union officer who knowingly participates 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 his employment status . . .”

    This means union officers face dismissal for participating in an illegal strike, while ordinary members can lose their jobs for knowingly committing illegal acts during a strike. The level of proof required is “substantial evidence,” meaning evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. This lower threshold of proof in labor cases underscores the importance of lawful conduct during strikes.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: THE CHUAYUCO STEEL STRIKE

    The Buklod ng Manggagawa union in Chuayuco Steel Manufacturing Corporation declared a strike, citing unfair labor practices and the company’s refusal to bargain. The roots of the conflict went deeper, stemming from the company’s initial refusal to recognize the newly elected union officers due to alleged internal union disputes. Despite the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) affirming the legitimacy of the new union leadership, the company remained resistant to bargaining.

    Here’s a timeline of the key events:

    1. May 10, 1999: Union election results in Camilo Lenizo as president, but the company refuses recognition.
    2. November 30, 2000: Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) expires, and the company ignores the union’s proposals.
    3. January 26, 2001: Union files a notice of strike with the National Conciliation Mediation Board (NCMB) due to unfair labor practices.
    4. April 25, 2001: The union stages a strike.
    5. May 9, 2001: The company files a Petition to Declare the Strike Illegal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), citing unlawful means used during the strike.

    The company presented evidence, including sworn statements, detailing how striking union members blocked factory gates with chains, structures, and large stones, preventing ingress and egress. Witness testimonies also described acts of intimidation and harassment against non-striking employees, including threats of violence and physical assault. One witness stated strikers threatened, “that if we removed it, we would be hurt and there would be trouble while they were holding sticks and stones.” Another recounted being punched by a striker and facing threats of harm.

    The Labor Arbiter initially declared the strike illegal, a decision affirmed by the NLRC. However, the Court of Appeals modified this, ordering the reinstatement of most union members, distinguishing between union officers and members who directly participated in illegal acts. The Court of Appeals, while acknowledging the strike’s illegality due to unlawful means, sought to mitigate the penalty for rank-and-file members.

    The Supreme Court ultimately reviewed the case, emphasizing its limited role in factual review but acknowledging exceptions when NLRC findings lack substantial evidence. The Supreme Court quoted the Court of Appeals’ finding: “…the petitioner blocked the free ingress and egress of the private respondent’s premises by chaining the main gate, putting structures and placing large rocks before the gates of the company’s premises.” Based on the evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the strike was indeed illegal due to the unlawful means employed.

    However, the Supreme Court refined the penalty further. It upheld the dismissal of union officers and those members directly involved in illegal acts of obstruction, intimidation, and violence, specifically naming individuals identified in the sworn statements. Crucially, the Court ordered the reinstatement of other union members who were part of the strike but not proven to have personally participated in illegal activities. The Court also corrected the Court of Appeals’ decision by excluding employees who had resigned or not participated in the strike from the reinstatement order.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: STRIKING WITHIN THE LAW

    This case reinforces a critical lesson for unions and employees in the Philippines: the right to strike is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of the law. While workers have the right to protest unfair labor practices and demand better working conditions, resorting to violence, intimidation, or obstruction can invalidate their strike and lead to severe consequences, including job loss.

    For businesses, this case provides clarity on their rights during strikes. Employers are not obligated to tolerate illegal strike activities and can seek legal remedies, including declaring a strike illegal and potentially terminating employees who engage in unlawful conduct. However, employers must also ensure they are not provoking illegal strikes through unfair labor practices in the first place.

    Key Lessons for Unions and Employees:

    • Know the Law: Unions and members must be thoroughly familiar with Article 264 of the Labor Code and understand what constitutes legal and illegal strike conduct.
    • Peaceful Assembly: Strikes should primarily involve peaceful picketing and assembly. Avoid any acts that could be construed as violence, coercion, or intimidation.
    • Maintain Access: Do not block ingress and egress to company premises. Pickets should allow free passage for non-striking employees, customers, and deliveries.
    • Discipline and Control: Union leaders must actively control their members’ conduct during strikes to prevent illegal acts by individuals, which could jeopardize the entire strike and members’ jobs.
    • Documentation is Key: Both unions and employers should meticulously document all strike activities, including any instances of alleged illegal conduct, through photos, videos, and sworn statements, as evidence in potential legal proceedings.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q: What makes a strike illegal in the Philippines?

    A: A strike can be declared illegal for two main reasons: either the objective of the strike is unlawful (e.g., to compel an employer to commit an illegal act), or the means employed during the strike are unlawful (e.g., violence, intimidation, obstruction of premises). This case focuses on the latter – illegal means.

    Q: Can union members be fired for participating in an illegal strike?

    A: Yes, union officers who knowingly participate in an illegal strike can lose their employment status. Rank-and-file union members can also be dismissed if they knowingly participate in illegal acts during a strike, such as violence or obstruction.

    Q: What are examples of illegal acts during a strike?

    A: Illegal acts include: blocking factory gates, preventing people or vehicles from entering or leaving company premises, acts of violence against persons or property, threats and intimidation, and obstructing public roads. These actions violate Article 264(e) of the Labor Code.

    Q: What is “substantial evidence” in labor cases?

    A: Substantial evidence is the level of proof required in labor cases to prove illegal acts. It means relevant evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is a lower standard than “proof beyond reasonable doubt” in criminal cases.

    Q: What should employers do if a strike turns violent or illegal?

    A: Employers should document all illegal activities, seek a temporary restraining order or injunction from the NLRC to stop the illegal acts, and file a petition to declare the strike illegal. They may also initiate disciplinary actions against employees involved in illegal activities.

    Q: What recourse do employees have if they believe a strike was wrongly declared illegal?

    A: Unions can appeal decisions declaring a strike illegal to the Court of Appeals and ultimately to the Supreme Court. However, it is crucial to ensure the strike is conducted legally from the outset to avoid such situations.

    Q: Is picketing always legal during a strike?

    A: Yes, peaceful picketing is a legal and protected activity during a strike. However, picketing becomes illegal when it involves violence, intimidation, or obstruction of access to the employer’s premises.

    Q: What is the role of the NLRC in strike cases?

    A: The NLRC has jurisdiction over labor disputes, including strike legality. It can issue restraining orders and injunctions against illegal strike activities and ultimately decide whether a strike is legal or illegal.

    ASG Law specializes in Labor Law and Litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation to ensure your labor practices and strike actions are legally sound.

  • Strike Legality: Balancing Workers’ Rights and Procedural Compliance in Labor Disputes

    The Supreme Court in Grand Boulevard Hotel vs. Genuine Labor Organization of Workers addressed when a strike can be considered legal. The Court emphasized that even if an employer is believed to be engaging in unfair labor practices, unions must still strictly follow all legal requirements for staging a strike, including providing proper notice and holding a strike vote. This ruling underscores the importance of procedural compliance in labor disputes, ensuring that strikes are conducted lawfully and do not unduly disrupt business operations.

    When Does a Strike Become Illegal? Grand Boulevard Hotel’s Labor Dispute

    The case arose from a labor dispute at the Grand Boulevard Hotel (formerly Silahis International Hotel, Inc.) involving the Genuine Labor Organization of Workers in Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries (GLOWHRAIN). The union staged a strike on November 16, 1990, citing unfair labor practices by the hotel, including the dismissal of union members and violations of their collective bargaining agreement. The hotel argued that the strike was illegal because the union failed to comply with the procedural requirements outlined in the Labor Code. This led to a legal battle that eventually reached the Supreme Court, which was tasked with determining the legality of the strike and the validity of the subsequent dismissal of union officers.

    The Supreme Court meticulously examined the facts and the applicable provisions of the Labor Code. The Court acknowledged the workers’ right to strike as a means to address grievances and unfair labor practices. However, it also emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements established by law. These requirements, outlined in Article 263 of the Labor Code, include filing a notice of strike with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), conducting a strike vote, and providing the DOLE with notice of the results at least seven days before the intended strike. These steps are designed to ensure that strikes are conducted lawfully and to provide an opportunity for mediation and conciliation.

    The Court noted that the union had filed a notice of strike on September 27, 1990, but the Acting Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) issued a status quo ante bellum order, which certified the labor dispute to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration and enjoined the parties from engaging in any strike or lockout. Despite this order, the union staged another strike on November 16, 1990, simultaneously with filing a new notice of strike. The Court found this to be a violation of Article 264(a) of the Labor Code, which prohibits strikes after the Secretary of Labor has assumed jurisdiction or certified the dispute to compulsory arbitration. As the Supreme Court stated:

    Art. 264. …

    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.

    The Court rejected the argument that the union’s good faith belief that the hotel was engaging in unfair labor practices excused their failure to comply with the procedural requirements. Citing the case of National Federation of Labor v. NLRC, the Court stated that even if the union acted in good faith, the failure to follow the mandatory requirements for a valid strike renders the strike illegal.

    In reaching its decision, the Court considered the economic impact of strikes, particularly on industries like the hotel, which contribute substantially to tourism and foreign exchange earnings. The Court emphasized the need for unions to adhere strictly to the procedural conditions sine qua non provided by law in staging a strike, to minimize disruption and protect the broader public interest. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, which had sided with the union, and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, which had declared the strike illegal.

    This decision highlights the delicate balance between protecting workers’ rights and ensuring that labor disputes are resolved in a lawful and orderly manner. The ruling serves as a reminder to unions that procedural compliance is not merely a technicality but a fundamental aspect of the right to strike. Unions must carefully navigate the legal requirements to ensure that their actions are protected under the law. The case also serves as a caution against prematurely resorting to strikes, especially when other avenues for resolving disputes, such as arbitration and conciliation, are available.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the strike staged by the union was legal, considering their failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the Labor Code. The court examined whether the union’s belief in the employer’s unfair labor practices excused their non-compliance.
    What are the requirements for a legal strike in the Philippines? The requirements include filing a notice of strike with the DOLE, conducting a strike vote approved by a majority of union members, and notifying the DOLE of the results at least seven days before the strike. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory for a strike to be considered legal.
    What happens if a union fails to comply with the strike requirements? If a union fails to comply with the requirements, the strike is considered illegal. The union officers and members may lose their employment status for knowingly participating in an illegal act.
    Can a union strike if the Secretary of Labor has already assumed jurisdiction over the dispute? No, Article 264 of the Labor Code prohibits strikes after the Secretary of Labor has assumed jurisdiction or certified the dispute to compulsory arbitration. Any strike during this period is considered illegal.
    Does a good faith belief in unfair labor practices excuse non-compliance with strike requirements? No, even if a union believes in good faith that the employer is committing unfair labor practices, it must still comply with the procedural requirements for a legal strike. Good faith does not excuse non-compliance.
    What is the cooling-off period? The cooling-off period is the 30-day or 15-day period (depending on the grounds for the strike) after filing a notice of strike with the DOLE, during which the parties are expected to attempt mediation and conciliation. This period must lapse before a strike can be legally staged.
    What is a status quo ante bellum order? A status quo ante bellum order is an order issued by the Secretary of Labor directing the parties to maintain the same terms and conditions of employment that existed before the labor dispute. It also typically enjoins any strike or lockout.
    What is the impact of an illegal strike on the striking employees? Employees who participate in an illegal strike may face disciplinary actions, including termination of employment. This is particularly true for union officers who lead or participate in an illegal strike.

    In conclusion, the Grand Boulevard Hotel case reinforces the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements for staging a legal strike in the Philippines. While workers have the right to strike to address grievances and unfair labor practices, this right is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of the law. Failure to comply with the procedural requirements can render the strike illegal and expose the participating employees to disciplinary actions.

    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: Grand Boulevard Hotel vs. Genuine Labor Organization of Workers, G.R. No. 153664, July 18, 2003

  • NLRC Remand Orders: Ensuring Due Process in Philippine Labor Disputes

    n

    When Can the NLRC Order a Labor Case Remanded? Ensuring Due Process and Fair Hearings

    n

    TLDR: This Supreme Court case clarifies the limits of the National Labor Relations Commission’s (NLRC) power to remand labor cases. It emphasizes that remanding a case should not be used to rectify a party’s failure to present evidence or to grant a second chance to cross-examine witnesses when due process has already been substantially observed. The NLRC must have a valid legal basis, such as lack of crucial evidence or denial of due process, to justify remanding a case back to the Labor Arbiter.

    nn

    [ G.R. No. 100342-44, October 29, 1999 ] RURAL BANK OF ALAMINOS EMPLOYEES UNION (RBAEU) AND ISMAEL TAMAYO, SR., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, THIRD DIVISION, EXEC. LABOR ARBITER JOSE B. BOLISAY AND RURAL BANK OF ALAMINOS, INC., RESPONDENTS.

    nn

    Introduction

    n

    Imagine a scenario where employees believe they’ve been unfairly dismissed or a company feels targeted by an illegal strike. These labor disputes are not just abstract legal battles; they directly impact livelihoods, business operations, and the delicate balance between labor and management. The case of Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union v. NLRC highlights a crucial aspect of labor dispute resolution in the Philippines: the power of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to remand cases back to the Labor Arbiter. At the heart of this case lies the question: When is it appropriate for the NLRC to send a case back for further proceedings, and when does such a remand overstep its bounds, potentially delaying justice and violating the rights of parties involved?

    nn

    This case arose from three consolidated labor disputes involving Rural Bank of Alaminos, Inc. (RBAI) and its employees’ union. The core issues were illegal dismissal claims by an employee, unfair labor practice charges by both the union and the bank, and the legality of a strike staged by the union. After the Labor Arbiter issued a consolidated decision, the NLRC remanded the cases for further proceedings, citing reasons such as lack of cross-examination and insufficient evidence. This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court, leading to a significant ruling on the scope and limitations of the NLRC’s remand power.

    nn

    Legal Context: NLRC’s Remand Power, Due Process, and Labor Disputes

    n

    The NLRC, as a quasi-judicial body, is tasked with resolving labor disputes efficiently and fairly. Its authority to remand cases is not explicitly detailed in the Labor Code but is generally understood as part of its appellate jurisdiction and inherent power to ensure just and expeditious resolution of cases. However, this power is not without limits. Fundamental to any legal or quasi-legal proceeding is the concept of due process. In labor cases, due process essentially means that all parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case, submit evidence, and be heard. Article 221 of the Labor Code emphasizes a non-litigious approach in NLRC proceedings, stating that technical rules of procedure are not strictly binding.

    nn

    Article 221 of the Labor Code states:

    n

    “ART. 221. Technical rules not binding. — In any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. In any proceeding before the Commission or any Labor Arbiter, parties may be assisted by legal counsel but are not required to be so assisted.”

    nn

    Despite the relaxed rules of procedure, the essence of due process – notice and opportunity to be heard – must always be observed. This includes the chance to present evidence, submit position papers, and, in certain circumstances, cross-examine opposing witnesses if crucial for ascertaining the truth. However, the Supreme Court has consistently held that formal trials are discretionary in labor proceedings. The submission of position papers can suffice, provided they adequately present each party’s side. Remand should not be a remedy for a party’s oversight in presenting its case adequately in the first instance.

    nn

    The Labor Code also defines unfair labor practices (ULP) by both employers and unions. For employers, ULP includes acts that interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, such as illegal lockouts or dismissals related to union activities. For unions, ULP can include illegal strikes. The legality of a strike hinges on compliance with procedural requirements like notice of strike and cooling-off periods, as well as substantive grounds for the strike, such as unresolved unfair labor practices.

    nn

    Case Breakdown: The Dispute and the Court’s Ruling

    n

    The story begins with Ismael Tamayo, Sr., an employee of Rural Bank of Alaminos, Inc. (RBAI), feeling bypassed for a promotion. This initial grievance snowballed into three interconnected labor cases:

    n

      n

    1. NLRC Case No. 01-03-7-0049-89 (Illegal Dismissal – Tamayo vs. RBAI): Tamayo claimed illegal dismissal after RBAI terminated his services shortly after reinstating him through a compromise agreement.

      2. n

    2. NLRC Case No. 01-04-7-0059-89 (Illegal Strike/ULP – RBAI vs. RBAEU): RBAI accused the Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union (RBAEU) of staging an illegal strike and engaging in unfair labor practices, seeking damages.

      3. n

    3. NLRC Case No. 01-06-7-0097-89 (ULP/Illegal Lockout – RBAEU vs. RBAI): The Union countered, accusing RBAI of unfair labor practices and illegal lockout, claiming constructive dismissal of union members due to the strike.

      4. n

    nn

    Labor Arbiter Ricardo Olairez consolidated these cases and ruled in favor of the employees and the union. He found Tamayo’s dismissal illegal, declared the union’s strike legal, and held RBAI guilty of unfair labor practice amounting to an illegal lockout and constructive dismissal of union members. The Labor Arbiter awarded backwages, retirement pay, damages, and ordered reinstatement.

    nn

    RBAI appealed to the NLRC, which issued a Resolution remanding all three cases for further proceedings. The NLRC cited several reasons for the remand:

    n

      n

    • In Case No. 0049-89 (Tamayo’s illegal dismissal), the NLRC argued RBAI was denied due process because it wasn’t allowed to cross-examine Tamayo on his position paper.

      • n

    • In Case No. 0097-89 (Union’s ULP/lockout case), the NLRC found insufficient evidence of illegal lockout and needed to determine the exact number of constructively dismissed employees.

      • n

    • Generally, the NLRC felt further proceedings were needed

  • Legality of Strikes: Requirements, Violence, and Reinstatement in the Philippines

    When is a Strike Illegal? Understanding the Fine Line Between Labor Rights and Illegal Acts

    G.R. No. 106316, May 05, 1997

    Imagine a scenario where workers, driven by grievances against their employer, decide to strike. But what if the strike isn’t conducted according to the strict rules set by law? What if violence erupts? This case delves into the complexities surrounding the legality of strikes in the Philippines, the consequences of illegal acts during a strike, and the rights of both employers and employees in such situations.

    In First City Interlink Transportation Co., Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, the Supreme Court examined the legality of a strike staged by the Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Fil Transit-National Federation of Labor (NMF-NFL) against Fil Transit. The case highlights the importance of adhering to legal requirements for strikes and the impact of violence on the strikers’ employment status.

    Legal Requirements for a Valid Strike

    The Labor Code of the Philippines sets out specific requirements that must be met for a strike to be considered legal. Failure to comply with these requirements can render the strike illegal, with serious consequences for the participating employees.

    Article 263 of the Labor Code outlines these key requirements:

    • Notice of Strike: A notice must be filed with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at least 30 days before the intended strike date (15 days in cases of unfair labor practice).
    • Strike Vote: A strike vote must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit, obtained through secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose.
    • Reporting of Results: The DOLE must be notified of the results of the strike vote at least 7 days before the intended strike.

    These requirements are mandatory and must be strictly followed. Non-compliance can lead to the strike being declared illegal, potentially resulting in the loss of employment for union officers who knowingly participate.

    Example: If a union stages a strike without conducting a strike vote, or without notifying the DOLE of the results at least 7 days in advance, the strike could be declared illegal.

    The Case: Fil Transit Strike

    The Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Fil Transit-National Federation of Labor (NMF-NFL) union filed a notice of strike against First City Interlink Transportation Co., Inc. (Fil Transit) due to alleged unfair labor practices. Despite conciliation conferences, no agreement was reached, and the union went on strike. The strike was marked by violence and illegal acts, including the hijacking of buses and damage to company property.

    The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and ordered the striking employees to return to work. However, the union later filed a motion for backwages, claiming that Fil Transit had refused to comply with the return-to-work order.

    The Secretary of Labor eventually ruled the strike legal and awarded backwages and separation pay to the strikers. Fil Transit appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

    Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

    • May 27, 1986: Union files notice of strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR).
    • June 17, 1986: Union goes on strike.
    • July 27, 1986: Second strike occurs.
    • September 16, 1986: Minister of Labor orders striking employees to return to work.
    • July 23, 1992: Secretary of Labor rules the strike legal and awards backwages and separation pay.

    Supreme Court’s Decision

    The Supreme Court reversed the Secretary of Labor’s decision, ruling that the strike was illegal. The Court found that the union had failed to prove that a strike vote had been taken before the strike was called, and that the mandatory seven-day strike ban was not observed. The Court also noted the pervasive violence during the strike.

    The Court quoted Article 263(c)(f) of the Labor Code, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the requirements for a valid strike. It stated that, “These requirements are mandatory.”

    The Court also addressed the issue of violence during the strike, stating:

    “Contrary to respondent Secretary’s finding, the strike declared by the Union was attended by pervasive and widespread violence. The acts of violence committed were not mere isolated incidents which could normally occur during any strike… The commission of these illegal acts was neither isolated nor accidental but deliberately employed to intimidate and harass the employer and the public.”

    The Court held that while the strike was illegal, only union officers and strikers who engaged in violent, illegal, and criminal acts lost their employment status. Union members who were merely instigated to participate in the illegal strike were to be treated differently.

    Practical Implications of the Ruling

    This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the legal requirements for strikes and the consequences of engaging in violence or illegal acts during a strike. It also clarifies the rights and obligations of both employers and employees in strike situations.

    Key Lessons:

    • Unions must strictly comply with the requirements of the Labor Code when staging a strike.
    • Violence and illegal acts during a strike can lead to the loss of employment for those involved.
    • Employers must comply with return-to-work orders, but can impose reasonable requirements for reinstatement.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What are the requirements for a legal strike in the Philippines?

    A: The requirements include filing a notice of strike with the DOLE, obtaining a strike vote approved by a majority of union members, and notifying the DOLE of the results at least 7 days before the strike.

    Q: What happens if a strike is declared illegal?

    A: Union officers who knowingly participate in an illegal strike may lose their employment status. Strikers who engage in violent or illegal acts may also face disciplinary action, including dismissal.

    Q: Can an employer impose conditions for reinstating striking employees?

    A: Yes, employers can impose reasonable requirements for reinstatement, such as medical examinations and submission of necessary documents. However, these requirements must be applied fairly and consistently.

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

    A: A return-to-work order is issued by the Secretary of Labor, directing striking employees to return to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike.

    Q: What are the consequences of failing to comply with a return-to-work order?

    A: Employers who fail to comply with a return-to-work order may be required to pay backwages, damages, and other affirmative relief. Employees who refuse to return to work may face disciplinary action, including dismissal.

    Q: What is separation pay?

    A: Separation pay is a monetary benefit given to an employee who is terminated from employment due to authorized causes, such as redundancy or retrenchment. In some cases, it may also be awarded in lieu of reinstatement.

    Q: What is backwages?

    A: Backwages refers to the compensation an employee should have received from the time of their illegal dismissal up to the time of reinstatement.

    ASG Law specializes in Labor Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.