Labor Rel Cases and Digest 2nd Batch

G.R. No. 101619 July 8, 1992 SANYO PHILIPPINES WORKERS UNION-PSSLU vs. CANIZARES, in his capacity as Labor Arbiter, BERNARDO YAP, RENATO BAYBON, SALVADOR SOLIBEL, ALLAN MISTERIO, EDGARDO TANGKAY, LEONARDO DIONISIO, ARNEL SALVO, REYNALDO RICOHERMOSO, BENITO VALENCIA, GERARDO LASALA AND ALEXANDER ATANASIO FACTS: PSSLU had an existing CBA with Sanyo. The CBA contained a union security clause. PSSLU wrote Sanyo that the private respondents/employees were notified that their membership with PSSLU were cancelled for antiunion, activities, economic sabotage, threats, coercion and intimidation, disloyalty and for joining another union called KAMAO. In accordance with the security clause of the CBA, Sanyo dismissed the employees. The dismissed employees filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal. Named respondent were PSSLU and Sanyo. PSSLU filed a motion to dismiss the complaint alleging that the Labor Arbiter was without jurisdiction over the case, relying on Article 217 (c) of the Labor Code which provides that cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA shall be disposed of by the labor arbiter by referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration. Nevertheless, the Labor Arbiter assumed jurisdiction. Public respondent through the Sol Gen, argued that the case at bar does not involve an "interpretation or implementation" of a collective bargaining agreement or "interpretation or enforcement" of company policies but involves a "termination." Where the dispute is just in the interpretation, implementation or enforcement stage, it may be referred to the grievance machinery set up in the CBA or by voluntary arbitration. Where there was already actual termination, i.e., violation of rights, it is already cognizable by the Labor Arbiter. ISSUE: Whether or not the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the case. HELD: We hold that the Labor Arbiter and not the Grievance Machinery provided for in the CBA has the jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. While it appears that the dismissal of the private respondents was made upon the recommendation of PSSLU pursuant to the union security clause provided in the CBA, We are of the opinion that these facts do not come within the phrase "grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of (their) Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies," the jurisdiction of which pertains to the Grievance Machinery or thereafter, to a voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators. No grievance between them exists which could be brought to a grievance machinery. The problem or dispute in the present case is between the union and the company on the one hand and some union and non-union members who were dismissed, on the other hand. The dispute has to be settled before an impartial body. The grievance machinery with members designated by the union and the company cannot be expected to be impartial against the dismissed employees. Due process demands that the dismissed workers grievances be ventilated before an impartial body. Since there has already been an actual termination, the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. G.R. No. L-19767 RIZAL CEMENT WORKERS UNION vs. MADRIGAL & Co. FACTS: Twenty-one complainant workers are members of the Union and work at the Bodega Tanque, Paco, Manila of Rizal Cement Co., Inc. The Union staged a strike at the plant of company in Binangonan, Rizal. In the early morning of the following day, warehouseman-encargado at the Bodega Tanque, was informed by the manager that the Union staged a strike against the company on the previous day and that he should take precautionary measures in protecting the properties of the company stored at the Bodega Tanque because of the strikers caused damage to the factory in Binangonan and sabotage might occur. For this reason, he was advised by the manager to request the members of the Union to stay meanwhile outside the premises of the Bodega Tanque. What he did in the morning was to station himself at the gate of the compound. When the workers arrived for work, he did not allow the 21 complaining workers who are members of the Union to enter the gate and allowed only those who are not members of said Union. ISSUE: Whether or not the lockout was valid. HELD: It is not herein controverted that the complainants were locked out or denied work by the respondent Company. As clearly established by the evidence, its refusal to all complainants to work and requirement that the latter stay out of the premises in the meantime (perhaps while the strike was still going on at the factory) was borne out of the Company's justified apprehension and fear that sabotage might be committed in the warehouse where the products machinery and spare parts were stored, as has been the case in Binangonan. It has never been shown that the act of the Company was intended to induce the complain ants to renounce their union-membership or as a deterrent for non-members to affiliate therewith, nor as a retaliatory measure for activities in the union or in furtherance of the cause of the union. G.R. Nos. L-7594 and L-7596 INSUREFCO PAPER PULP AND PROJECT WORKERS' UNION vs. INSULAR SUGAR REFINING CORPORATION

FACTS: The Union, through its leaders and officials submitted to the management of the Company a set of demands urging immediate action. These demands were handed over to the officers of the company on June 12, 1952. At that time the Acting General Manager, together with the members of the Board of Directors, were absent, having gone to Bacolod City, Negros Occidental, to attend a conference. The leaders of the Union were advised of this fact and were informed that they would probably be back on June 17. And in the morning of June 14, 1952, the Union, also through its leaders, submitted another demand regarding certain maulings and acts of violence being committed inside the refinery and requesting that they be stopped. And as no immediate action was taken thereon, — but despite the advice given to them that their demands would be submitted to the Acting General Manager immediately upon his arrival from Bacolod City, — the leaders of the Union caused its members to declare a strike at about midnight of June 14, 1952 thereby causing the stoppage and paralization of the operations of the refinery. After due trial, the CIR declared the strike unjustified and illegal and giving discretion to the management of the Company to dismiss from the service the leaders responsible therefore. ISSUE: Whether or not the strike is valid. HELD: It can readily be seen that the walkout was premature as it was declared without giving to the General Manager, or the BOD of the Company, reasonable time within which to consider and act on the demands submitted by the Union. The nature of the demands was such that no possible action could be taken thereon by the officials to whom they were submitted. They could have only been acted upon by the General Manager, or by the BOD. The former was then in Bacolod, and the latter could not be convened because the chairman and two of its members were also absent. And this fact was well known to the Union. In the circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that, as found by the lower court, the strike staged by the Union was unfortunate, as it is ill-considered, considering the great damage caused to the business of the refinery resulting from the complete paralization of its operations. The Court of Industrial Relations, therefore, acted rightly in declaring said strike unjustified and illegal. G.R. No. L-7425 ALMEDA, ET AL., (Pepsi-Cola Labor Organization) vs. CIR and PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, INC., FACTS: The union presented to the president of the company, Mr. Clarkin, certain demands. The latter, invited them for a conferenc, but they did not appear until Mr. Clarkin left for US. The union submitted to Mr. Pascual, Treasurer of the company, new demands, giving the management two days to answer. Knowing that Mr. Pascual had no power to act on their demands, they agreed to wait until the reply of Mr. Clarkin. But the union went on strike. ISSUE: Whether or not the strike is valid. HELD: The strike was clearly unjustified because the union went on strike knowing that their demands could not be acted upon by the Treasurer of the company in the absence of its President, and they did not wait until their demands could be acted upon by him. Not only this, but the strikers through their representatives had misled, not to say deceived the trial court. Despite the assurances given by them that they would not go on strike and did not even have the intention of striking, they went on strike just the same. Said strike may, in a way, even be regarded as equivalent to a violation or disobedience of an order of the CIR. When the Union commenced these proceedings before the CIR the Union threatened to immediately go on strike. Sensing this attitude of the workers, the Company petitioned the CIR to issue an order to prohibit the threatened strike. CIR was ready and was about to issue a writ of injunction against the laborers not to strike, and that the only reason it did not issue the writ was because of the assurances given by the Union which were not fulfilled. It should also be stated that the strikers unanimously voted in favor of the strike. As a result, the products valued at P2,000 became a loss; and by means of threats, it prevented the other employees, brokers, distributors and drivers of the Company to enter its premises which the Company suffered damages in the sum of P4,000 daily. The company may not be compelled to reinstate the strikers as employees. national labor union vs phimco 70 phil 300 (di ko mahanap) G.R. No. L-4423 UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES EDUCATION EMPLOYEES (NLU) vs. PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO. FACTS: Fabroa and Carandang, president and the secretary, respectively, of the above Union having been discharged for alleged defiance of their employer's authority and subversive acts against the company's interest, and for allegedly having indulged in Union activities during office hours, and the rest of the members of the Union having called a strike by reason of that dismissal, the Court of Industrial Relations, to which the disputes were submitted, found the said dismissal unwarranted and the strike legal. Fabroa and Carandang were accordingly ordered reinstated, and the other members of the Union returned to work. ISSUE: Whether or not the strike is valid.

HELD: There was no justifiable cause for the employees to stop working immediately following or simultaneously with Fabroa's and Carandang's dismissal. It was Fabroa and Carandang who committed acts bordering on unfair labor practice. It was insinuated that the company's decision to lay off some of its employees was retaliation to the Union's demands. It so happened that it was the other way around for, as has been, the demands were submitted after the proposed cut in personnel was announced. There was obviously an attempt here to mislead; and there is no doubt that Fabroa and Carandang also mislead their co-employees into believing that a petition had already been lodged with the Court of Industrial Relations. There was therefore no urgent need for a strike and if the employees struck they did so at their risk. Until all the remedies and negotiations looking toward the adjustment or settlement of labor disputes having been exhausted, the law does not look with favor upon resorts to radical measures, the pernicious consequences of which transcend the rights of the immediate parties. FILCON MANUFACTURING CORPORATION vs. LAKAS MANGGAGAWA SA FILCON-LAKAS MANGGAGAWA LABORCENTER (LMF-LMLC) FACTS: Respondent was one of the legitimate labor organizations of the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner, while the Shoe Workers Association and Technology (SWAT) was the exclusive bargaining agent of such rank-and-file employees. It had an existing CBA effective up to January 15, 1990. Some of the employees found out from their bundy cards that they logged out earlier when the power supply was interrupted and they were sent home. They demanded for explanation but did not receive any so they staged a strike. The petitioner terminated their employment. The employees thereafter filed complaints for illegal dismissal with the NLRC. The petitioner, in turn, filed a complaint against the said employees to declare the strike illegal. Pending the resolution of the complaints, the respondent union, Bisig Manggagawa and Kampil Katipunan, filed separate petitions for certification election before the BLR in November 1989, within the freedom period. ISSUE: Whether or not the ground for the strike is valid. HELD: Based on the records, the SWAT was the certified exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner. Furthermore, the CBA expired on January 15, 1990 and was not renewed due to the filing by three unions, including the LMFLMLC, of their respective petitions for certification election. However, since the CBA provided that it would continue to be in effect until a new one had been entered into, the no-strike-no-lockout clause was still in effect; as such, the contract bar rule was still applicable, and, consequently, the strike was illegal. The Labor Arbiter, likewise, pointed out that the strike was based on a non-strikable ground, more specifically, an intra-union and inter-union conflict. UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES VS. NESTLE PHILS, INC. FACTS: UFE filed a notice of strike with the BLR against Filipro (now Nestle Philippines). UFE filed a complaint for ULP against Nestle and its officials for violation of the Labor Code on Holiday Pay, non-implementation of the CBA provisions (Labor Management Corporation scheme), Financial Assistance and other unfair labor practice. Acting on Nestle's petition seeking assumption of jurisdiction over the labor dispute or its certification to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, then Minister of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and ordered that a strike, lockout, or any other form of concerted action such as slowdowns, sitdowns, noise barrages during office hours, which tend to disrupt company operations, are strictly enjoined. But the union members still staged a strike. UFE seeks to absolve itself by pointing out qualifying factors such as motives, good faith, absence of findings on specific participation and/or liability, and limiting the no-strike provision to economic strikes. ISSUE: Whether or not the ground for the strike is valid. HELD: Regardless of their motives, or the validity of their claims, the striking workers must cease and/or desist from any and all acts that tend to, or undermine this authority of the Secretary of Labor, once an assumption and/or certification order is issued. They cannot, for instance, ignore return-to-work orders, citing ULP on the part of the company, to justify their actions. The strike was staged in violation of the existing CBA provisions on "No Strike/No Lockout Clause" stating that a strike, which is in violation of the terms of the collective bargaining statement, is illegal, especially when such terms provide for conclusive arbitration clause. The main purpose of such an agreement is to prevent a strike and it must, therefore, be adhered to strictly and respected if their ends are to be achieved. Instead of exhausting all the steps provided for in the grievance machinery provided for in the collective bargaining agreement to resolve the dispute amicably and harmoniously within the plant level, UFE went on strike.