Central Vegetable Oil Manufacturing Co., Inc. vs. Philippine Oil Industry Workers Union

Central Vegetable Oil Manufacturing Co., Inc. vs. Philippine Oil Industry Workers Union 95 Phil 761 Facts: On July 17, 1948, CVOMC, Inc. and POIWU entered into an agreement. The agreement provides that, upon the reopening of the factory, after the installation of 6 new duo expellers necessary to increase production and effect economy in management, the company and a duly authorized representative of union shall determine who shall be hired for each kind of work among the former laborers and shall fix the wages they should receive similar to those of laborers of Philippine Refining Company agreed to pay its laborers who shall be returned to work. The union agrees to allow its affiliated laborers who were working on June 10, 1948 to resume work immediately upon signing of agreement and will not consider the re-employment of those who already received gratuity before July 17, 1948 and severed their relations with the company. CIR approved the agreement on July 23, 1948. Accordingly, while machineries were being installed, the 24 laborers were laid off. However, upon demand of said laborers, the company allowed them to work one day each week. They continued to work on shifts of 4 men a day. When the 6 new duo expellers were being tested the 24 laborers were allowed to work full time basis. On or before August 6, 1949, notice was posted by plant superintendent that oil mill would stop operation from August 7-8, 1949. On August 8, 1949, the 24 laborers did not report to work. The CVOMC Inc. filed with CIR to discharge the 24 laborers on the ground that they declared an illegal strike. After hearing, the court ordered for the dismissal of 24 laborers and to replace them with new ones, without prejudice to other laborers of Union. Upon motion for reconsideration filed by union, CIR ordered for reinstatement and payment of their wages. No strike was staged because there was no work as announce by the notice. Even admitting that there was a strike, the same was not illegal. The company has filed this present petition for review on certiorari. Issues: Whether or not the 24 laborers’ act of not reporting for work is a strike. Assuming it is a strike, is the strike illegal. Held: We will assume that there was a strike on August 8, 1949. Prior to the date of the alleged strike, the union presented to the company a 14-point petition and asked to allow the 24 laborers to work for more than one day or a minimum of 2 days a week. The company insisted that the union should appoint a representative, with the company that could fix the wages of the laborers as required by the agreement. The strike prompted by the refusal of the company to discuss the 14-point petition of the union and to concede at least 2 working days a week was legitimate. The plea of the laborers for better conditions and for more working days cannot be said to be trivial, unreasonable or unjust, much less illegal because it is not only the inherent right but the duty of all free men to improve their living standard through honest work that pays a decent wage. The demands that gave rise to the strike may not properly be granted but that fact should not make the demands and the consequent strike illegal. The ability of the company to grant the demands is one thing, and the right of the laborers to make said demands is another thing. The latter should be kept inviolate.

It may be mentioned that there is nothing in the agreement that may be interpreted as prohibiting the union from seeking more working days or better conditions for the laborers. The appealed decision of CIR is affirmed and it is so ordered with costs against the petitioner.