Shell Oil Workers Union vs Shell Co. Phils.

FACTS:
Petitioner argued that the 18 security guards affected are part of the
bargaining unit and covered by the existing collective bargaining contract, as such,
their transfers and eventual dismissals are illegal being done in violation of the
existing contract. The Company maintained that in contracting out the security
service and redeploying the 18 security guards affected, it was merely performing
its legitimate prerogative to adopt the most efficient and economical method of
operation, that said action was motivated by business consideration in line with past
established practice and made after notice to and discussion with the Union, that
the 18 guards concerned were dismissed for wilfully refusing to obey the transfer
order, and that the strike staged by the Union is illegal. CIR no unfair labor
practice; strike is illegal - there being no compliance with the statutory requisites
before an economic strike could be staged.
ISSUE:
W/N the strike was legal.
HELD:
YES. The strike was legal because there was a violation of the collective
bargaining agreement by Company. It was part of the CBA that the Security Guard
Section will remain. Yet, the Company did not comply with the stipulation in CBA. It
was thus an assurance of security of tenure, at least, during the lifetime of the
agreement. For what is involved is the integrity of the agreement reached, the
terms of which should be binding on both parties.
An unfair labor practice is committed by a labor union or its agent by its
refusal to bargain collectively with the employer. Collective bargaining does not
end with the execution of an agreement, being a continuous process, the duty to
bargain necessarily imposing on the parties the obligation to live up to the terms of
such a collective bargaining agreement if entered into, it is undeniable that noncompliance therewith constitutes an unfair labor practice.
*** Art. 269 (c) [blue codal 2013] - As a matter of fact, this Court has
gone even further. It is not even required that there be in fact an unfair labor
practice committed by the employer. It suffices, if such a belief in good faith is
entertained by labor, as the inducing factor for staging a strike. So it was clearly
stated by the present Chief Justice while still an Associate Justice of this Court: "As a
consequence, we hold that the strike in question had been called to offset what
petitioners were warranted in believing in good faith to be unfair labor practices on
the part of Management, that petitioners were not bound, therefore, to wait for the
expiration of thirty (30) days from notice of strike before staging the same, that said

strike was not, accordingly, illegal and that the strikers had not thereby lost their
status as employees of respondents herein.

CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILS., vs. MARSMAN and

CO., INC., and the COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
FACTS:
Marsman & Co., Inc., hereinafter referred to as the Company, was charged
with unfair labor practice committed against sixty-nine officers and members of the
Marsman & Company Employees and Laborers Association (hereinafter referred to
as MARCELA or simply as the Union). The Court (Judge Jose S. Bautista), after
hearing, found the Company guilty of the charge and ordered it to reinstate 60 of
the aforementioned 69 complainants to their former positions or to similar ones with
the same rate of pay, without back wages.
Both the Union and the Company appealed. The former claims that the 60
reinstated employees should be granted backpay while the latter questions the
Industrial Court's finding of unfair labor practice. (ISSUE)
HELD:
The Company alleges that it was economic reasons, i.e., its policy of
retrenchment, not labor discrimination, which prevented it from rehiring
complainants. This is disproved, however, by the fact that it not only readmitted the
other strikers, but also hired new employees and even increased the salaries of its
personnel by almost 50%. We are convinced that it was not business exigency but a
desire to discourage union activities which prompted the Company to deny
readmittance to complainants. This is an indubitable case of unfair labor practice.
In an economic strike, the strikers are not entitled to backpay, since
the employer should get the equivalent day's work for what he pays his employees.
During the time that the strike was an economic one, complainants had no right to
back pay. The Industrial Court could not have made a finding of unfair labor practice
with respect to such time, as none had so far been committed. This being an unfair
labor practice case, it cannot, therefore, order reinstatement much less back pay for
that period.4
On the other hand, even after the court has made a finding of unfair labor
practice, it still has the discretion to determine whether or not to grant back pay.
Such discretion was not abused when it denied back wages to complainants,
considering the climate of violence which attended the strike and picket that the
complainants conducted. While the complainants ordered reinstated did not actively
take part in the acts of violence, their minatory attitude towards the Company may

be gathered from the fact that from the very first day of the strike policemen had to
patrol the strike zone in order to preserve peace.

Rizal Cement Workers Union vs. CIR

FACTS:
On September 2, 1954, petitioner Union sent to respondent company, a letter
containing a set of proposals for the purpose of entering into a collective bargaining
contract with it. A reply was made by respondent on September 11, 1954, stating
that it could not entertain the proposals until after Case No. 676-V, which was then
pending with respondent CIR, has been finally settled, since the demands in the
proposals and those involved in the pending case were the same.
Petitioner declared a strike against respondent at its cement plant in
Binangonan Rizal, where the strikers conducted their picketing; that during said
strike, a Philippine Constabulary detachment was assigned in the strike area to
maintain peace and order. On February 28, 1957, petitioner, in behalf of its striking
members, made an offer to respondent to return to work. At the height of the strike,
a PC officer named Lt. Emilio Simbulan was hit and struck with a piece of bamboo in
the strike area. Some workers of respondent company were not able to work on May
27, 1956 because of the strike of petitioner union. Stones were hurled at the motor
launch "Carbon" of respondent, as a result of which its front windshield was broken.
Jose Beltran, timekeeper of respondent Company, was found dead along the
provincial highway near the strike area. On November 10, 1954, a collective
bargaining agreement was entered into by and between respondent and intervenor.
On March 18, 1952, CIR issued an injunction order in Case No. 676-V, enjoining
respondent not to lockout its Employees, and the employees not to strike.
ISSUE:
W/N employees were deprived of their wages that they should have earned
but did not as a consequence of a lockout which is a violation of Section 15 of
Republic Act No. 875
HELD:
SEC. 15.
Violation of Duty to Bargain Collectively. It shall be
unlawful for any employer to refuge to bargain collectively with the
representative of his employees, or to declare a lockout without having
first bargained collectively with the representatives of his employees,

in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Any employee whose

work has stopped as a consequence of such lockout shall be entitled to
backpay.
The lockout referred to is that which is committed by the employer, if it
refused to give work to its workers. No finding was made by the CIR on the question
of lockout. That there was no lockout is clear from the observations of the
respondent court, when it said; "the striking union decided on this question of strike
which was carried out and maintained by picketing the respondent's cement plant
at Binangonan Rizal". The offer to return to work made by the members of the
petitioner, did not make the refusal to accept the same, a lockout. This is so
because the case on the legality or not of the strike was then pending decision by
the CIR and said Court did not issue any order in connection with said offer. The
strike which was openly and publicly declared by the petitioner union on May 27,
1956, can not be converted into a pure and simple lockout, by the mere obedient of
filing before the trial court a notice of offer to return to work, during the pendency of
the labor dispute. Petitioner alleges that said refusal to accept them, constituted a
"virtual lock-out". The law does not provide for a virtual lockout. But assuming, that
the non-acceptance of the unconditional offer to return to work was a virtual
lockout, still the circumstances of the case would not justify the demand that the
strikers are entitled ipso jure to back wages. This is so because the respondent
court found that the strike was attended by isolated acts of violence committed by
the strikers and stated, in the same breath, that certain degree of reason and
fairness be accorded the strikers.

Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa vs CIR

FACTS:
Union proposed to the SMC that the wage distortion be corrected by
implementing a 25php wage increase, which it later lowered to 15php. The
Company, however, only effected a 7php wage increase. The union considered the
SMCs move as the company ignoring their demands. As a result, the union decided
to work only for 8 hours per day, against the company practice for 5 years of having
the workers work 10 to 14-hour work shifts - workers refusal to work beyond 8
hours was a legitimate means of compelling SMC to correct distortion..
This caused the company, SMC losses, due to diminished productivity,
prompting it to file a complaint with the NLRC seeking the declaration of the said
unions activity (strike/slowdown) as illegal - the coordinated reduction by the Unions
members of the work time in order to compel SMC to yield to the demand was an illegal
and unprotected activity.

ISSUE:
W/N the strike was legal.
HELD:
NO. The strike invoking the issue of wage distortion is illegal. The legality of
these activities depends on the legality of the purposes sought to be attained.
These joint or coordinated activities may be forbidden or restricted by law or
contract.
The legislative intent that solution of the problem of wage distortions shall be
sought by voluntary negotiation or arbitration, and not by strikes, lockouts, or other
concerted activities of the employees or management, is made clear in the rules
implementing RA 6727 issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment pursuant
to the authority granted by Section 13 of the Act. Section 16, Chapter I of these
implementing rules, after reiterating the policy that wage distortions be first settled
voluntarily by the parties and eventually by compulsory arbitration, declares that,
Any issue involving wage distortion shall not be a ground for a strike/lockout.
Malayang Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Greenfield v. Ramos
FACTS:
The local union held a general membership meeting at the Caruncho
Complex in Pasig. Several union members failed to attend the meeting, prompting
the Executive Board to create a committee tasked to investigate the nonattendance of several union members in the said assembly, pursuant to Sections 4
and 5, to wit: to deduct the union fines from the wages/salaries of those union
members who failed to attend the general membership meeting.
The national federation, Godofredo Paceo, Jr. disapproved the resolution of
the local union imposing the P50.00 fine. The union officers protested such action
by the Federation. Federation wrote respondent company a letter advising the latter
not to deduct the fifty-peso fine from the salaries of the union members. The
imposition of P50.00 fine became the subject of bitter disagreement between the
Federation and the local union.
Federation filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board to compel the company to effect the immediate termination of the expelled
union officers. Federation succeeded.
Petitioners filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB, DOLE, Manila, docketed as
Case No. NCMB-NCR-NS-03-216-89, alleging the following grounds for the strike: (a)
Discrimination; (b) Interference in union activities; (c) Mass dismissal of union
officers and shop stewards; (d) Threats, coercion and intimidation; (e) Union busting

The following day, March 9, 1989, a strike vote referendum was conducted
and out of 2, 103 union members who cast their votes, 2,086 members voted to
declare a strike.
A total of 78 union shop stewards were placed under preventive suspension
by respondent company. This prompted the union members to again stage a walkout and resulted in the official declaration of strike at around 3:30 in the afternoon
of March 14, 1989. The strike was attended with violence, force and intimidation on
both sides resulting to physical injuries to several employees, both striking and nonstriking, and damage to company properties.
The employees who participated in the strike and allegedly figured in the
violent incident were placed under preventive suspension by respondent company.
ISSUE:
W/N the decision made by the Labor Arbiter rendering the strike illegal is
correct.
HELD:
NO. Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal is due to the existence of a no
strike no lockout provision in the CBA. Again, such a ruling is erroneous and it was
based on an intra-union dispute which cannot properly be the subject of a strike, the
right to strike being limited to cases of bargaining deadlocks and unfair labor
practice. A no strike, no lock out provision can only be invoked when the strike is
economic in nature, i.e. to force wage or other concessions from the employer
which he is not required by law to grant. Such a provision cannot be used to assail
the legality of a strike which is grounded on unfair labor practice, as was the honest
belief of herein petitioners. Again, whether or not there was indeed unfair labor
practice does not affect the strike.

Samahang Manggagawa sa Sulpicio Lines v. Sulpicio Lines

FACTS:
The Union filed a notice of strike due to deadlock with the NCMB-NCR after
the renegotiation for a CBA with Sulpicio Lines remained a stalemate. Sulpicio in
response filed with the SOLE a petition praying that the Secretary assume
jurisdiction over the controversy. SOLE Confesor issued an Order assuming
jurisdiction over the labor dispute and enjoined any strike or lockout by the parties.
The Union filed a second notice of strike alleging that Sulpicio Lines
committed acts constituting ULP amounting to union busting. The Union
immediately conducted a strike vote on the same day. As a result, 167 rank-and-file

employees, officers and members did not report for work and instead gathered in
front of Pier 12, North Harbor
SOLE Confesor issued another order directing the employees to return to
work and certifying the labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration.
Sulpicio Lines filed a complaint for illegal strike/clearance for termination with the
NLRC. NLRC: strike was illegal; Sulpicio has the option to terminate the Union
officers
ISSUE:
W/N the strike was illegal.
HELD:
YES. The Union did not observe the 7-day waiting out period. Neither were
the results of the strike vote submitted to the DOLE at least 7 days before the strike.
The language of the law leaves no room for doubt that the cooling-off period
and the 7-day strike ban (waiting out period) after the strike-out report were
intended to be mandatory.
The Union cannot invoke good faith to justify its holding of a strike. Its
allegation of acts constituting ULP amounting to union busting is bereft of any proof.
It is still the Unions burden to prove using substantial evidence its allegation of ULP.
It is not enough that the union sincerely believe that the employer committed such
acts when the circumstances clearly negate even a prima facie showing to warrant
such a belief.

Capitol Medical Center v. NLRC

FACTS:
The Union had to contend with another union the Capitol Medical Center
Alliance of Concerned Employees (CMC-ACE) which demanded for a certification
election among the rank-and-file employees of the petitioner. Med-Arbiter Brigida
Fadrigon granted the petition, and the matter was appealed to the Secretary of
Labor and Employment (SOLE). Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma rendered a
Resolution on November 18, 1994 granting the appeal. He, likewise, denied the
motion filed by the petitioner and the CMC-ACE. The latter thereafter brought the
matter to the Court which rendered judgment on February 4, 1997 affirming the
resolution of Undersecretary Laguesma, thus:

1. Dismissing the petition for certification election filed by the Capitol Medical
Center Alliance of Concerned Employees-United Filipino Services Workers for lack of
merit; and
2. Directing the management of the Capitol Medical Center to negotiate a
CBA with the Capitol Medical Center Employees Association-Alliance of Filipino
Workers, the certified bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees.
Thereafter, in a Letter dated October 3, 1997 addressed to Dr. Thelma N.
Clemente, the President and Director of the petitioner, the Union requested for a
meeting to discuss matters pertaining to a negotiation for a CBA, conformably with
the decision of the Court.[4] However, in a Letter to the Union dated October 10,
1997, Dr. Clemente rejected the proposed meeting, on her claim that it was a
violation of Republic Act No. 6713 and that the Union was not a legitimate one.
The Union filed a Notice of Strike on October 29, 1997 with the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), serving a copy thereof to the petitioner.
The Union alleged as grounds for the projected strike the following acts of the
petitioner: (a) refusal to bargain; (b) coercion on employees; and (c) interference/
restraint to self-organization.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that no voting had taken place on November 10,
1997; moreover, no notice of such voting was furnished to the NCMB at least
twenty-four (24) hours prior to the intended holding of the strike vote. According to
the Labor Arbiter, the affidavits of the petitioners 17 employees who alleged that no
strike vote was taken, and supported by the affidavit of the overseer of the parking
lot and the security guards, must prevail as against the minutes of the strike vote
presented by the respondents. The Labor Arbiter also held that in light of Article
263(9) of the Labor Code, the respondent Union should have filed a motion for a
writ of execution of the resolution of Undersecretary Laguesma which was affirmed
by this Court instead of staging a strike.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter, hence this
petition.
ISSUE:
W/N the strike staged was illegal.
HELD:
YES. Article 263 of the Labor Code and the Implementing Rules, which include
the 24-hour prior notice to the NCMB:
1) A notice of strike, with the required contents, should be filed with
the DOLE, specifically the Regional Branch of the NCMB, copy furnished
the employer of the union;

2) A cooling-off period must be observed between the filing of notice

and the actual execution of the strike thirty (30) days in case of
bargaining deadlock and fifteen (15) days in case of unfair labor
practice. However, in the case of union busting where the unions
existence is threatened, the cooling-off period need not be observed.
3) Before a strike is actually commenced, a strike vote should be
taken by secret balloting, with a 24-hour prior notice to NCMB.
The decision to declare a strike requires the secret-ballot approval of
majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit
concerned.
4) The result of the strike vote should be reported to the NCMB at least
seven (7) days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to the
cooling-off period.
The requirement of giving notice of the conduct of a strike vote to the NCMB
at least 24 hours before the meeting for the said purpose is designed to (a) inform
the NCMB of the intent of the union to conduct a strike vote; (b) give the NCMB
ample time to decide on whether or not there is a need to supervise the conduct of
the strike vote to prevent any acts of violence and/or irregularities attendant
thereto; and (c) should the NCMB decide on its own initiative or upon the request of
an interested party including the employer, to supervise the strike vote, to give it
ample time to prepare for the deployment of the requisite personnel, including
peace officers if need be. Unless and until the NCMB is notified at least 24 hours of
the unions decision to conduct a strike vote, and the date, place, and time thereof,
the NCMB cannot determine for itself whether to supervise a strike vote meeting or
not and insure its peaceful and regular conduct. The failure of a union to comply
with the requirement of the giving of notice to the NCMB at least 24 hours prior to
the holding of a strike vote meeting will render the subsequent strike staged by the
union illegal.

Reliance Surety and Insurance Co. v. NLRC

FACTS:
Management of Reliance Surety & Insurance Co, Inc. re-arranged the sitting
arrangement of its staff to lessen non-work related conversations, personal
telephone calls and non-work related visits. Employees who were members of the
union took the changes as a means of singling them out and applying pressure on
them to quit the union or to be more submissive to the company.
Union members refused to obey the new arrangement and even cursed and
argued with management for which they were disciplined and eventually dismissed.

This prompted the complaint in the NLRC against the company wherein the workers
alleged unfair work practices.
While the complaint was hibernating [cooling off period] the employees
staged a strike that did not get the majority vote of the union as required. This
prompted the company to file a complaint with the NLRC because they alleged that
the strike was illegal. Labor arbiter and NLRC found the strike to be illegal but ruled
that dismissal it too severe a punishment. The company should reinstate the
employees without back-pay which they deemed punishment enough.
ISSUE:
W/N the strike was illegal and the company committed an ULP.
HELD:
The Company merely exercised its prerogative in assigning new seats for the
benefit of the company and it did not in any way constitute an unfair labor practice.
The strike was not only illegal but it was also violent wherein the union
harassed not only management but also other employees not on strike. a violation
of the cooling off period in good faith is merely a defective strike whereas in this
case the violation was done in bad faith hence the strike is illegal. In Bacus v. Ople
mere finding of illegality attending the strike cannot be used to dismiss employees
who were impressed with good faith.
As a general rule, the sympathy of the Court is on the side of the
laboring classes, not only because the Constitution imposes sympathy but
because of the one-sided relation between labor and capital. The Court
must take care, however, that in the contest between labor and capital,
the results achieved are fair and in conformity with the rules. We will not
accomplish that objective here by approving the act of the National Labor
Relations Commission which we hold to constitute a grave abuse of
discretion.

Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa vs CIR

HELD:
The Court concedes the workers right to self organization and to concerted
activities in exercise of that right. The Court also pointed out that common
examples are strike/temporary stoppage of work, and picketing.
However, the Court also points out that such right is not absolute and may be
limited by law. In this case, the Court pointed out that:

The legality of these activities is usually dependent on the legality of

the purposes sought to be attained and the means employed therefor.
These joint or coordinated activities may be forbidden or restricted by law
or contract.