Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Digest for Labor

The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees Association - NATU, FGU Insurance Group Workers and Employees Association - NATU, and Insular Life Building Employees Association - NATU, petitioners vs. The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., FGU Insurance Group, Jose M. Olbes, and Court of Industrial Relations, respondents. G.R. No. L-25291, January 20, 1971

The CIR prosecutor filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the Companies, specifically (1) interfering with the members of the Unions in the exercise of their right to concerted action; and (2) discriminating against the members of the Unions as regards readmission to work after the strike on the basis of their union membership and degree of participation in the strike. After the trial, the Court of Industrial Relations dismissed the Unions’ complaint for lack of merit.

FACTS:

ISSUES:

The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees Association - NATU, FGU Insurance Group Workers and Employees Association - NATU, and Insular Life Building Employees Association - NATU (herein referred to as the Unions), while still members of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW), entered into separate collective bargaining agreements with the Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., and the FGU Insurance Group (herein referred to as the Companies). Two of the lawyers and officers of the Unions namely Felipe Enaje and Ramon Garcia, tried to dissuade the Unions from disaffiliating with the FFW and joining the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU), to no avail. Enaje and Garcia soon left the FFW and secured employment with the Anti-Dummy Board of the Department of Justice and were thereafter hired by the companies - Garcia as assistant corporate secretary and legal assistant, and Enaje as personnel manager and chairman of the negotiating panel for the Companies in the collective bargaining with the Unions. On October 1957, negotiations for the collective bargaining was conducted but resulted to a deadlock. From April 25 to May 6, 1958, the parties negotiated on the labor demands but with no satisfactory results due to the stalemate on the matter of salary increases. This prompted the Unions to declare a strike in protest against what they considered the Companies’ unfair labor practices. On May 20, 1958, the Unions went on strike and picketed the offices of the Insular Life Building at Plaza Moraga. On May 21, Jose M. Olbes, the acting manager and president, sent individual letters to the striking employees urging them to abandon their strike with a promise of free coffee, movies, overtime pay, and accommodations. He also warned the strikers if they fail to return to work by a certain date, they might be replaced in their jobs. Further, the Companies hired men to break into the picket lines resulting in violence, and the filing of criminal charges against some union officers and members. When eventually, the strikers called off their strike to return to their jobs, they were subjected to a screening process by a management committee, among the members were Garcia and Enaje. After screening, eightythree (83) strikers were rejected due to pending criminal charges, and adamantly refused readmission of thirty-four (34) officials and members of the Unions who were most active in the strike.

I.

Whether or not the Companies are guilty of unfair labor practice when they sent individual letters to the strikers with the promise of additional benefits, and notifying them to either return to work, or lose their jobs; and

II.

Whether or not the Companies are guilty of unfair labor practice for discriminating against the striking members of the Unions in readmission of employees after the strike.

HELD: First issue. The Companies contended that by sending those letters, it constituted a legitimate exercise of their freedom of expression. That contention is untenable. The Companies are guilty of unfair labor practice when they sent individual letters to the strikers. It is an act of interference with the right to collective bargaining through dealing with the strikers individually instead of through their collective bargaining representatives. Although the Unions are on strike, the employer is still obligated to bargain with the union as the employees’ bargaining representative. Further, it is also an act of interference for the employer to send individual letters to the employees notifying them to return to their jobs, otherwise, they would be replaced. Individual solicitation of the employees urging them to cease union activity or cease striking consists of unfair labor practice. Furthermore, when the Companies offered to “bribe” the strikers with “comfortable cots, free coffee, and movies, overtime work pay” so they would abandon their strike and return to work, it was guilty of strike-breaking and/or union busting which constitute unfair labor practice. Second Issue. Some of the members of the Unions were refused readmission because they had pending criminal charges. However, despite the fact they were able to secure clearances, 34 officials and members were still refused readmission on the alleged ground that they committed acts inimical to the Companies. It should be noted, however, that non-strikers who also had criminal charges pending against them in the fiscal’s office, arising from the same incidents whence against the criminal charges against the strikers are involved, were readily readmitted and were not required to secure clearances. This is an act of discrimination practiced by the Companies in the process of rehiring and is

therefore a violation of Sec. 4(a)(4) of the Industrial Peace Act. The respondent Companies did not merely discriminate against all strikers in general since they separated the active rom the less active

unionists on the basis of their militancy, or lack of it, on the picket lines. Discrimination exists where the record shows that the union activity of the rehired strikers has been less prominent than that of the strikers who were denied reinstatement.