Toyota Motor Phils. Workers vs. NLRC

 

Toyota Motor Phils. Workers vs. NLRC, 537 SCRA 171

TOPIC

Paradigm sh shift to tow wards mu mutual cooperation-Consti, Art X XIIII, Sec. 3

DOCTRI DOC TRINE NE

It is is high high time time that that emplo employer yer and employ employee ee cease cease to v view iew eac each h othe otherr as as ad adver versar saries ies and instead recognize that theirs is a symbiotic relationship, wherein they must rely on each other to ensure the success of the business. Here, the strikes caused business losses on the part of Toyota at around P54M while the Union members lost their work and pay.

FAC FA CTS

To Toyo yotta M Mo oto torr Phi Phils ls.. Cor Corp p. Wor Work ker erss Ass Assoc ocia iattion ion (Un (Unio ion n) sou soug ght to to set set aside side the the CA CA decision which affirmed the NLRC decision declaring illegal their strikes staged by them and upholding the consequent dismissals. Toyota prayed for the recall of the award of severance compensation to the 227 dismissed employees. The first strike stemmed from Toyota’s refusal to recognize the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all Toyota rank and file employees. More than 200 employees staged mass actions for 2 days which resulted to Toyota’s loss of around P54M. This prompted Toyota to send individual letters to the employees requiring them to explain within 24 hours why they should not be dismissed for their refusal to render the mandated work hours. The workers alleged that: 1.) they merely exercised their right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances, 2.) these were not illegal strikes, 3.) Toyota had condoned these when they accepted them back. Toyota terminated their employment for participation in concerted actions in violation of its Code of Conduct and for misconduct under Article 282 of the Labor Code. This led to several more strikes by the Union.

ISSUE

1. Whether the mass actions committed by the Union were illegal? Yes. 2. Whether the separation pay should be awarded to the Union members? No.

RULINGS

1. The strikes were illegal. a. 6 categories of an illegal strike (Ludwig Teller): 1.) [when it] it] is contrary to a specific specific prohibitio prohibition n of law, such as strik strikee by employees performing governmental functions; or  2.) [when it] it] violates a specific specific requiremen requirementt of law[,such law[,such as Article 263 of the Labor Code on the requisites of a valid strike]; or  3.) [when it] it] is declared for for an unlawful unlawful purpose, purpose, such as inducin inducing g the employer employer to commit an unfair labor practice against nonunion employees; or  4.) [when it] it] employs employs unlawful means means in the pursuit pursuit of its objective, objective, such as a widespread terrorism of nonstrikers [for example, prohibited acts under Art. 264(e) of the Labor Code]; or  5.) [when it] it] is declared in violation violation of an existing existing injunctio injunction[, n[, such as injunction, prohibition, or order issued by the DOLE Secretary and the  NLRC under Art. 263 of of the Labor Code]; or  6.) [when it] it] is contrary to an existing existing agr agreemen eement, t, such as a no-strike no-strike clause or conclusive arbitration clause.  b. Strike v. Labor Dispute

A strike means any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. A labor dispute, in turn,

 

includes any controversy or matter concerning terms or conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of the employer and the employee. The substance of the situation and not the term used is controlling. c. (Feb. 21-23, 2001 Strikes) Failure to satisfy the requisites for a valid strike under Art. 263 of the Labor Code 1.) a notice of strike strike filed filed with the DOLE DOLE 30 days before before the intende intended d date of strike, or 15 days in case of unfair labor practice; 2.) strike strike vote approved approved by a majority majority of the total union union membe membership rship in the  bargaining unit concerned concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose; and 3.) notice notice given to the the DOLE of the results results of the the voting at at least seven seven days  before the intended strike. This is to reasonably regulate the right to strike. d. Violation of Sec. D, para. 6 of Toyota’s Code of Conduct This prohibits “inciting or participating in riots, disorders, alleged strikes or concerted actions detrimental to [Toyota’s] interest.” e. (Mar. 28-Apr. 12, 2001 Strikes) violation of Art. 264(e) This proscribes acts of violence, coercion, or intimidation, or which obstruct the free ingress to and egress from the company premises. f. Contravention of the Order of the DOLE Secretary that no acts should be undertaken by them to aggravate the “already deteriorated situation.” s ituation.” While there were no work stoppages as the participants were already dismissed employees, they still violated the assumption of jurisdiction and certification Order of  the DOLE Secretary. g. Union officers are liable for unlawful strikes or illegal acts during a strike under Art. 264(a). Art. 264(a) sanctions the dismissal of a union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike or who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a lawful strike. h. Member’s liability depends on participation in illegal acts The rule on vicarious liability of a union member was abandoned and it is only when a striking worker “knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike” that he will be penalized with dismissal. No precise meaning was given the  phrase “illegal acts” but it may encompass a number number of acts that violate existing labor  or criminal acts and other breaches of the law. The company is required to show substantial evidence or that relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion which Toyota was able to do so based on the foregoing. 2. The Union members are not entitled to separation pay. a. GR: When just causes for terminating the services of an employee under Art. 282 of the Labor Code exist, the employee is not entitled to separation pay.  b. XPN: When the court finds justification in applying the principle of social justice well entrenched in the 1987 Constitution. c. 2 exceptions when the NLRC or the courts should not grant separation pay based

 

on social justice, that is, serious misconduct, or, acts that reflect on the moral character of the employee. The CA concluded that the illegal strikes committed by the Union members constituted serious misconduct and that the constitutional guarantee on social justice is not intended only for the poor but for the rich as well. It is a policy of fairness to  both labor and management. management.