YSS EMPLOYEES UNION-PHILIPPINE „S. YSS LABORATORIES, INC.

YSS Laboratories is a domestic corporation engaged in the pharmaceutical business. "YSSEU is a duly registered
labor organization the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the rank file employees of YSS Laboratories.

To arrest escalating business losses, YSS Laboratories im- plemented a retrenchment program which affected 11
employees purportedly chosen in accordance with the reasonable standards by the company. employees were given
the option to avail themselves of the early retrorement program. When no one opted, to retire early, YSS
Laboratories exercised its option to terminate the services employees

Claiming that YSS Laboratories was guilty of discrimination and in carrying decided to hold a strike. a number of
conciliation proceed- were conducted by the NCMB-Ncr, but these efforts proved futile Secretary of Labor deemed
that the continuation of the labor: was inimical to national interest.

Secretary of Labor certified the labor dispute to the (jNjLRC) for compulsory arbi- tration—

striking workers were thereby directed to to work within 24

Laboratories, however, refused to fully comply

TSS Laboratories argued that nine union officers and members retrenchment should be excluded from the operation
of the return-to- ■work order

It also asserted that the union Officers11 who participated the purported illegal strike should likewise not be
allowed to le back to th^ir employment for they were deemed to have already "lost their employment status.

WHETHER OR NOT THE SECRETARY OF LABOR GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN

CERTIFYING THE LABOR DISPUTE TO NLRC FOR COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.

WHETHER OR NOT THE RETRENCHED EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE

OPERATION OF THE RETURN TO WORK ORDER

Ruling:

ART. 263. Strikes, picketing, and lockouts.

See provision

The grant of these plenary powers to the Secretary of Labor makes it incumbent upon him to bring about soonest, a
fair and just solution to the differences between the employer and the employees, so that the damage such labor
dispute might cause upon the national interest maybe minimized as as much as possible, if not totally averted
to effectively achieve such end, the assumption or certifx- cation Older shall have the effect of automatically
enjoining the in- tended or impending strike or lockout.

if one has already taken place, all striking workers shall immediately return to and the employer shall immediately
resume operations and readmit workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.

YSS Laboratories* vigorous insistence on the exclusion of the re- trenched- employees from the coverage of the
return-to-work order seriously impairs the authority of the Secretary of Labor to forestall a. labor dispute that he
deems inimical to the national economy-

when the Secretary of Labor directed YSS Laborato- ries to accept all the striking workers back to work, the
Secretary did exceed his jurisdiction,

grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment.

"The Orders dated 11 May 2001 and 9 June 2001 were issued by the Secretary of Labor, with the end in view of
preserving the status quo ante while the main issues of the validity of the retrenchment and legality of the strike?
threshed out in the proper forum.

certification orders are execu- toiy in character and are to be strictly complied with by the parties,. even during the
pendency of any petition questioning their validity.

7SS Laboratories must readmit all striking employees and give them back their respective jobs. -Regardless
therefore of its motives,

Accepting back the workers in this case is not a matter of option, but of obligation mandated fc>y law for Y§S
laboratories.

PALEU vs PAL Inc

Certification attests to the urgency of the matter.

the determination of who among the strikers could be admitted back to work cannot be made to depend upon the
discretion employer'

the reium-to-work order does not interfere 'with the management's prerogative, but merely regulates it when, in the
exercise of such right, national interests will be affected.

lights granted by .the Constitution are not absolute.

2. National Union Workers (NUWHRAIN NIKKO HOTEL) vs CA

The Union is the certified bargaining agent of the regular

rank-and-file employees of Dusit Hotel Nlkko X Hotel),

On October 24,2OO0, the Union submitted its Collective Agreement (CBA) negotiation proposals to the Hotel-

the parties failed to arrive at • mutually acceptable terms and conditions.

Due to th.« bar- gaining deadlock, the Union, filed a Notice of Strike before the NCMB.

conciliation hearings were conducted which proved unsuccessful.a Strike Votes' « conducted by the Union on
which it yrts decided tk-«t the Union would wage a strike.

Union held a general assembly at its office some membra sported closely cropped hair or cleanly shaven heads

The Hotel prevented these workers from entering the premises claiming -that they vio- lated the Hotel's Grooming
Standards.

In view of the Hotelaction, the Union staged a picket out side the Hotel premises. Later, other workers were also pre-
vented from entering the Hotel causing them to join the picket.

For this reason the Hotel experienced a severe lack of manpower which forced them to temporarily cease operations
in three restaurants.

the Hotel issued no- tices to TJnion members, preventively suspending" them.

The next d^> the Union filed with the NCMB a second Notice of Strike on the ground of unfair labor practice.

the Hotel terminated the services of twenty-nine. (29) Union ofBcers and sbctyone (61) members; eight (48)
employees for 15 days, four (4) employees days, and three (; employees for five days.

Union declared strike. It engaged in picketing the premises of the Hotel. During the the Union officials ajad
members unlawfully blocked ingress and egress of the Hotel
premises.

the Union filed its third Notice of Strike

the Secretary: assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and certified
the case to the NLRC ft>** compulsory arbitration,
 pursuant to the Secretary's Order, the* Hotel issued an Inter-Office Memorandum,' directing some to do so, as
they were placed under payroll reinstatement.

NLRC: the January 18,2002 concerted action was an illegal strike in which illegal acts were committed by
the Union; and that the strike violated the *No Strike, No lock-out* provision of the CBA

WHETHER OR NOT THE STRIKE WAS ILLEGAL

YES.

An. 2l2(o) of the Labor Code defines a strike as "any temporaiy stoppage of work by the concerted action of
employees a result of an industrial or labor dispute*

LudwiS Teller, lists si* (6) categories of an illegal strike:

1. Contrary to law.
2. Violates a specific requirement of law.
3. Unlawful purpose.
4. Unlawful means.
5. Declared in violation of existing jurisdiction. Ex. Injunction.
6. Contrary to existing agreement.

we hold that the TJnion is liable for conduct- ing an illegal strike for the foUowing reasons

First, the Union's violation of the Hotel's Grooming Stan- dards was clear J)' a deliberate and concerted action to
under* mine tte authority of and to eimbarrass the Hotel and was. therefore, not a protected action.

The appearances of the Ho- tel employees directly reflect the character and well-being of Hotel, being a five-star
hotel.

This Court is of the opinion, therefore, that the act of the Union was not merely an expression of their grievance or
displeasure but, indeed, a calibrated and calculated act designed to inflict serious dam- age to the Hotel's finances or
its reputation-

Union's concerted violation of the Hotel's Grooming" Standards should be considered as an illegal strike.

Second, the Union's concerted action which disrupted the Hotel's operations clearly violated the CBA's "No Strike,
No Lockout" prevision, which reads:
Third, the Union officers and members' concerted action to shave their heads and crop their hair not only violated the
Hotel's Grooming Standards but also violated the Union's duty and responsibility to bargain in good faith-

the Union's action to have their officers and members' shaved was manifestly calculated to antagonize and embarrass
the Hotel management and In doing so effectively the operations of the Hotel and violated their dutyto bargain
collectively in good faith.

Fourth, the Union failed to observe the mandatory 30-day Cooling period and the 7day strike ban conducted the
strike on January 18, 2002.

Filed notice: Dec. 20, 2001

Strike was on Jan 18 2002 instead of 19

Strike vote was held on Jan 14 and submitted to NCMB only on Jan 18.

Therefore they should not have struck until Jan 25.

.
Last, the Union committed illegal acts in the conduct of its strike.

Officers and members of the union formed human barricades and obstructed the hotel driveway.

"\Vhat then are the consequent liabilities Of the Union Offi- cers and members for their participation in the illegal
strike?

Art- 264(a)

Any union officer who knowingly participates ifi an ffiegal strike any worker or union officer who knowingly par-
ticipates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may fee declared to have lost bis employment Status.

Clearly, the 29 Union officers may be dismissed pursuant Art. 264(a), par. 3 of the Labor Code

As to union members, hotel failed to point out participation of each union members although they were avail to prove
the blocking of ingress and egress.

For this lapse in judgment or diligence, we are constrained to reinstate the 61 Union members.

3. Jackbilt Industries vs Jackbilt Union

Due to the adverse effects of the Asian economic crisis on the construction industry beginning 1997, petitioner
Jackbilt decided to temporarily stop its business of ployees to go on leave for six months.4
Respondent Jackbilt E^Ma^es Workers "Union-] immediately protested the. temporary shutdown'

respondent claimed that petitioner halted production to avoid its duty to bargain collectively.

on March 9, 1998, respondent went on strike.

Its officers and members picketed petitioner's main gates and deliberately prevented persons and vehicles from going
into and out of the compound.

the NLRC issued a TRO directing the property. respondents to refrain from preventing access to petitioner's
property.

Respondent however violated the Order.

Union members, stopped and inspected private vehicles entering and exiting petitioner's production facility*

petitioner sent individual memoranda to the officers and members of respondent who participated in the strike8
ordering them to explain why they should not be dismissed.

Respondents ignored. Petitioner dismissed.

respondent filed complaints for illegal lockout, runaway shop and damages,

ISSUE: whether or not the filing of a petition with the labor arbiter to declare a strike illegal is a condition «tne qua
non for the valid termination of employees who commit an illegal act in the course of such strike.

No.

Article 264(e) of the Labor Code prohibits any person en- S*ged in picketing from obstructing the free ingress to and
egress from the employer's premises.

Since respondent, was found in the j^ly 17, 1998 decision of the NLRC to have pre- the free entr^ into and exit of
vehicles from peti- tioner's compound, respondent's officers and employees clearly committed illegal acts in the
course of the March 9, 1998 strike.

The use of unlawful means in the course of a strike renders such strike illegaL

Therefore, pursuant to the principle of conclusiveness of judgment, the March 9,1998 strike was ipso facto illegal.

Filling of petition to declare strike illegal was not needed.

4. Airline Pilots Assoc. of the Philippines vs PAL

a labor dispute be" tween respondent Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) and ALPAP, the legitimate labor organization
and exclusive bargaining agent of all commercial pilots of PAL.

AXPAP filed on December 9, a notice of strike7 against respondent PAL' with the DOLE

the Dole Secretary assumed -jurisdiction oyer the labor dispute.

It issued an order prohibiting strike.

Despite such reminder to the parties, however, ALPAP went on strike on June 5, 1998.

» ,
It prompted Secretary Cresenciano B. Trajano, to issue a retum-to-work order"on june 7 1998.

However, it was only on June 26, 1998 when ALPAP officers and members reported back to work as shown in a
logbook.

a consequence, PAL refused to accept the returning pilots for their failure to comply immedi- ately with the
return-to-work order.

filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal lockout13 against PAL.

DOLE declared the strike conducted by ALPAP illegal and pronouncing the loss of employment stat
us of its officers and
members who participated in the strike in defiance of the June 7, 1998 return-to-work order.

This was eventually elevated to the SC and attained finality on August 29, 2002.
Despite such, on January 13, 2003, ALPAP filed before DOLE a Motion requesting to conduct an
appropriate
legal proceeding to determine who among its officers and members should be reinstated or deemed
to have lost
their employment with PAL for their actual participation in the strike. PAL, in its comment argued
that the
motions cannot legally prosper since the DOLE Secretary has no authority to reopen or review a fi
nal judgment of the Supreme Court.
DOLE concludes that the case has indeed been resolved with finality by the highest tribunal of the
land, the
Supreme Court and being final and executory, DOLE has no authority to reopen an issue that has
been passed upon by the Supreme Court. DOLE merely noted the motions.\
This was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE: Did the CA committed grave mistake in declaring that the resolution of the DOLE has al
ready taken up
and resolved the issue of who among the ALPAP members are deemed to have lost their employm
ent status?

No.

There is no necessity to conduct a protiding to determine the participants in tht illegal strike or those who refused to
heed the return to borV order because the ambiguity can be cured by reference to the body of the decision and the
pleadings filed.

A review of the records reveals that in N^jMB NCR N$12-

- the DOLE Secretary declared the ALPAP officers and members to have lost their employment status based on
either of two grounds:

Participation in the illegal strike.

Failure to comply with the return to work order.

The records of the case unveil the names of each of these returning pilots.

Refer to digest pota.

6. Visayas Medical Center vs Yballe

Respondents were hired as staff nurses (Qng and Angel) and midwives (Yballe and Cortez) petitioner Visayas MC. a
tertiary medical institution by the United Church of Christ in the Philippines.

National Federation of Labor (NFL) is the ex- elusive bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees of
MCCHI.

7. Tabangao Employees Assoc vs Pilipinas Shell

Facts:
The parties started negotiations for a new CBA In anticipation of the expiration on April 30,2004 of the 2001-2004
Collective Bargaining .Agreement
The union proposed a 20% annual across-the- board basic salary increase for the next three years that would be
covered by the new CBA.

company made a counter-proposal to grant all covered employees a lump sum amount of 80,000.00 yearly for the
three-year period of the new CBA.

union requested the company to present its counter- proposal in full detail.

company explained. Not satisfied with company's explanation, union asked for further justification.

company refused to acknowledge any obligation to giv« further justification.

the union rejected.the comjpany's counter-proposal.

Union lowered its proposal to 12% annual across-the-board increase of salary.

the company increased its counter-proposal to a yearly lump sum payment P88,000.00.

The company reiterated that its counter-offer is based on its affordability for the company, comparison with the then
exist ing wage levels of allied industry and the then existing total pay and benefits package of the employees.

However, the union remained unconvinced and asked for additional documents to justify the company's
counter-offer.

Union requested copy of the comparison of the salaries of its members and those from allied industry.

Company refused.

company proposed the declaration of a deadlock and recom- mended that the help of a third party be sought.

However, the union filed a Notice of Strike in the National Conciliation and Mediation Board alleging bad faith
bargaining.

Ruling
First, the petition is barred by res judicata in the concept conclusiveness of judgment.

1. Decision of the SOLE had already attained finality.

ART. 263. The decision of the President, the Secretary of Labor and Employment, the Commission or the voluntary
arbitrator shall be final arid executory ten (10) calendar days after receipt thereof by the parties.
Neither party questioned the Decision dated June 8, 2005 of SOLE.

the controversy between the union and the company moot.

2. The petition is improper as it presents questions of fact.

The existence of bad faith is a question of fact and is evi- dentiaiy.

3. The merits are still not in the union's favor.

tihe duty to bargain, that is, it does not compel any party to accept a proposal or to make any concession.

"While the purpose of collective bargaining is the reaching of 'esulting in a binding contract between the parties, the
failure to reach an agreement after negotiations continued for a reasonable period does not mean lack of good faith.

TJie laws: invite and contemplate a collective bargaining contract but do compel one.

In this light, the corporation's unswerving position on the matter of annual lump sum payment in lieu of wage
increase did not, by itself, constitute bad .faith even if such position caused a stalemate in the negotiations.

8. Asia Brewery vs Tunay na Pagkakaisa

Respondent: LLO, Certified Exclusive Bargaining Agent.

Parties had been negotiating for a new collective bargaining agreement for the years 2003-2006.

negotiations, the parties were still unable to reconcile their differences on their respective positions.

Respondent declared deadlock, filed Notice of Strike.

Union conducted a strike vote. Out of the 840 union members, 768 voted in favor of holding a strike.

SOLE assumed jurisdiction.

9. Philippine Diamond Hotel Inc vs Manila Diamond Hotel EU

On November 11,1996, the union, filed a Petition for Certification Election.

The DOLE-NCR denied the union's petition as it failed to comply with legal requirements.
Francis Mendoza (Mendoza), one of the Hotel's outlet cashiers, was discovered to have failed to remit to the Hotel
the amount of p7l,692.50 at the end of Jiis May 1997 duty.

IVlendoza claimed that after accomplishing his remittance report, union president, Jose Kimpo also an outlet cashier,
signed the same and dropped his remittances.

Through its president Kimpo, the union later notified peti tioner of its intention to negotiate.

Acting on the notice, the Hotel advised the union that since it was not certified by the DOLE as the exclusive
bargaining agent, it could not be recognized as
such.

Union announced that its executive officers as well as its di- rectors decided to go on strike in view of the
management's refusal to bargain collectively, and thus called for the taking of strike vote.

Petitioner thereupon issued a Final Reminder and "Warning to respondent against continuing misinformation
campaign and activities which confused the Hotel employees and disturbed their work performance.

Union filed Notice of Strike.

Conciliation conferences were immediately conducted by the NCMCB.

the union demanded the holding of a consent election to which the Hotel interposed no objection, provided the union
followed the procedure under the law.

Election was set on January 1998.

however, the union suddenly went on a strike.

An NLRC. representative who conducted an ocular inspec- tion of the Hotel premises confirmed in his Report that
the strikers obstructed the free ingress to and egress from the Hotel.

NLRC issued TRO.

The service upon the strikers of the TRo notwithstanding, they refused to dismantle the tent they put up at the
employee's entrance to the Hotel, prompting the Hotel's security guards to, on December 10, 1997, dismantle the
same during which the strikers as well as the guards were hit by rocks coming from the direction of the construction
site at the nearby Land Bank Plaza, resulting to physical injuries to
Some of them.

Some employees were dismissed.

Issues:
I. W/N the strike is illegal.
II. W/N

Ruling:
Yes.

1.ART. 255.

As the immediately quoted provision declares, only the la- bor organization designated or selected by the majority of
the employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit is the exclusive representative of the employees in such
unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.

The union is admit- tedly not the exclusive representative of the majority of the employees of petitioner, hence, it
could not demand from peti- tioner the right to bargain collectively in their behalf.

2. Respondent’s contention that is was only bargaining on behalf of its members only is untenable.

the same would, only "fragment the employees of petitioner”.

It will only divide the employees.

the other workers who are not members are at a serious disadvantage, because if the same shall be allowed,
employees who are non-union members will be economically impaired and "will not be able to negotiate their terms
and conditions of work'

thus defeating the very essence and reason of collective bargaining, vwhidi is an effective safeguard against the evil
schemes of employers in terms and conditions of work."

Bottomline: Petitioner's refusal to bargain then with respondent cannot be considered a ULP to justify the staging of
the strike.

3. Staging of strike is prohibited during pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the strike. (Art. 264)

4. Strikers also committed illegal acts during the strike.

the photographs taken during the strike, as well as the Ocular Inspection Report of the NLRC representative,

show that the strikers, with the use of ropes and footed plac- blockaded the driveway to the Hotel's points of entrance
and exit making it burdensome for guests and prospective guests to enter the Hotel.
Strikers as well held noise barrage and threatened the guests with bodily harm.

the police reports mention about the strikers' exploding of firecrackers, causing the guests to panic.

5. Constitutional right to strike is not absolute; must be in accordance with law.

6. Even if the purpose of a strike is valid, the strike may still be held illegal where the means employed are illegal.

No.

1. The union officers should be dismissed for staging and participating in theille- gal strike.

An ordinary striking, worker cannot, thus be dismissed for mere participation in an illegal strike. that he committed
illegal acts during a strike, unlike a union officer who may be dismissed by mere knowingly participat- in an illegal
strike and/or committing an illegal act during a strike.

2. The strikers indeed committed illegal acts as shown by photos.

However, The list failed to specifically identify the ones who actually committed illegal acts.

Thus, remanded to NLRC.

Rules on Backwages* and exceptions. (Alam mo na yun)

10. Sukhothai vs CA

Facts:
The majority of the employees of the petitioner organized themselves into a union which affiliated with the
Philippine Labor Affiance Council (PLAC).

private respondent Union filed a Notice of Strike on the ground of ULP.

On December 10,1998, in a conciliation conference, the representatives of the petitioner agreed and guaranteed that
there will • be no termination of the services of private respondents during the pendency of the case, with the
reservation of the management prerogative to issue memos to erring employees for the infraction, or violation of
company policies.

the petitioner and the Union entered into a Submission Agreement, thereby agreeing to submit the issue of unfair
labor practice voluntary arbitration with a view to prevent strike.
during the pendency of the voluntary arbitration proceedings, the petitioner, dismissed Eugene Lucente, a union
member, due to an alleged pett/ quarrel with a co-employee.

Another employee Lanorias was dismissed as cook.

Shortly thereafter, respondents staged a "wildcat strike”.

Notice of strike was refiled.

the petitioner filed a complaint for illegal strike.

Issue: W/N strike was illegal.

Ruling:

Yes.
1. Art. 264
No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Secretary or after
certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases
involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout.

Rationale: Once jurisdicition over the labor dispute has been properly acquired by competent authority, that
jurisdiction should not be interfered with by, the application of the coercive process of strike.

2. The alleged dismissals of Lucente and respondent Lanorias, both union members, which allegedly triggered the
wildcat strike, are not sufficient grounds to justify the radical recourse.

Respondent alleged: Breach of Guarantee of non termination.

However, the remedy is to raise it in the Voluntary Arbitration Proceeding.

3. Illegal acts were also committed.

Rule: Even if purpose of strike is valid, it is still illegal if illegal acts are committed.

Illegal acts were committed.

Slanderous, intimidating words. Word which caused panic and caused customers to turn away from Sukhothai.

“Lason keme keme”.

Rule on Illegal acts committed by 1) Union Officer, 2) Union Member.

11. Biflex Labor Union vs Filflex

Facts:

Respondents Biflex (Phils.) Inc. and Filflex Industrial are sister companies engaged in the garment business.

Situated in one big com pound along with another sister company, they have a common entrance.

the labor sector staged a welga ng bayan to protest the accelerating prices of oil.

petitioner-unions, led by their officers, herein petitioners, staged a work stoppage which lasted for several days.

Respondents filed petition to declare work stoppage illegal.

respondents resumed their operations.

Petitioners were prevented from entering company premises and reporting for work.

LA declared work stoppage illegal.

Respondents thereupon terminated the employment of petitioners.

NLRC: Reversed.

CA: Reversed, for LA.

Issue: W/N the work stoppage was illegal.

Ruling:

Yes.
1. Stoppage of work due to u>elga ng bay cm is in the nature of a general strike, an extended sympathy strike.

It affects numerous employers including those who do not have a dispute with their employees regarding their terms
and conditions of Employment.

Employees who have no labor dispute with their employer but who, on a day they are scheduled to work, refuse to
work and instead join a ujelga ng bay an commit an illegal work stoppage.
2. Even if petitioners' joining the uoelga ng bay an were considered merely as an exercise of their freedom of
expression, the exercise of such rights is not absolute.

protection of other significant state inter- ests such as the "right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments,
and to expansion and growth er*shrined in the Constitution must also be considered, otherwise, oppres- sionor
self-destruction of capital in order to promote the in terests of labor would be sanctioned.

3. There being no showing that petitioners notified respondents of their intention, or that they were allowed by
respondents, to join the welga ng bayan, their work stoppage is beyond legal protection.

4. Even assuming arguendo that in staging the strike, petitioners had complied with legal formalities, the strike
would just the same be illegal, for by blocking the free ingress to and egress from the company premises, they
violated Article 264(e) of the Labor Code.

12. Santa Rosa Coca Cola EU vs Coca Cola Bottlers

Facts:

The Union and the Company had entered into a three-year (CBA) effective July 1, 1996 to expire on June 30,1999.

UPon the expiration of the CBA, the Union informed the Company of its desire to renegotiate.

The Union insisted that representatives from the Alyansa ng mga Utvyon sa Coca-Cola be allowed to sit down as
observers in the -CE^ meetings.

Union officers and members also insisted that their wages be based on their work shift rates.

Respondent: NO.

Resulted into an impasse.

Notice of Strike was filed.

Meanwhile, on September 15, 1999, the Union decided to participate in a mass action organized by the Alyansa rig
mga Urcyon sa Coca-Cola in front of the Company's premises.

106 Union members, officers and members of the Board of pirectors, and shop stewards, individually filed
applications for leave of absence for September
21, 1999.
the Company disapproved all leave applications

A day before the mass action, some Union mem"bers wore gears, red tag cloths stating "YES KAMI SA £TKIKE" as
headgears and on the different parts of their uniform, shoulders and chests.

The Office of the Mayor issued a permit to the Union, allowing it "to conduct a mass protest action within the
perimeter of the Coca-Cola plant.

a result, only one of the three bottling lines operated during the day shift.

the Company filed a "Petition to Declare Strike Illegal".

LA: for company

, the strike conducted t>y the Union was illegal since there was no showing that the Union conducted a strike vote,
observed the prescribed cooling-off period, much less, submitted a strike vote to the DOLE within the required time.

NLRC: Affirmed

Issues:
1. whether the September 21,1999 mass action staged by the. Union was a strike;
2. if, in the affirmative, whether it was legal;
3. whether the individual officers and shop stewards of petitioner Union should be dismissed from their
employment.

Ruling:
Yes.

1. Article 212(q) of the Labor Code defines strike as a temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of
employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.

Bangalisan vs CA
"the fact that the conventional term 'strike' was not used by the striking employees to describe their common
course of action is inconsequential, since the substance of the situation, and not its appearance, will be deemed to be
controlling.”

The term "strike" encompasses not only concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sit-downs,
attempts to dam.age, destroy or sabotage plant equipment and facilities, and similar activities.

Picketing involves merely the marching to and fro at the premises of the employer, usually accompanied by the
display of placards and other signs making known the facts involved in a labor dispute.
As applied to a labor dispute, to picket means the stationing of one or more persons to observe and attempt to
observe.

The purpose of pickets is said to be a means of peaceable persuasion.

2. The basic elements of a strike are present in this case:

Thus, petitioners engaged in a concerted activity which already affected the company's operations.

The mass concerted activity constituted a strike.

3. Mayor's permit is not conclusive evidence that their action/activity did not amount to a strike.

what is definitive of whether the action staged by petitioners is a strike and not merely a picket is the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the situation.

4. The decision to declare a strike must therefore rest on a rational basis.

A strike is the most powerful of the economic weapons of workers which they unsheathe to force management to
agree to an equitable sharing of the joint product of labor and capital.

The decision to declare a strike must therefore rest on a rational basis, free from emotionalism, envisaged by the
tempers and tantrums of a few hot heads, and finally focused on the legitimate interests of the Union which should
not, however, be antithetical to the public welfare, and, to be valid, a strike must be. pursued within legal bounds.

The right to strike as a means of attainment of social justice is never meant to oppress or destroy the employer.

5. For a strike to be valid, the following procedural requisites provided by Art. 263 of the Labor Code must be
observed:

(a) a notice of strike filed with the DOLE 30 days before the intended date thereof, or 15 days in case of unfair labor
practice;
(b) strike vote approved Toy a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned obtained W
secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose.
, (c) notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike.

"These requirements are mandatory and the failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike illegal.

It is clear in this case that petitioners totals ignored the statutory requirements and embarked on their illegal strike.
Yes.

1. A worker merely participating in an illegal strike may not be termi- nated from employment. It is only when he
commits illegal - acts during a strike that he may be declared to have lost em- ployment status.

For knowingly participating in an illegal strike or participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike, the
law provides that a union officer may be termi* nated from employment.

The law gTants the employer the option of declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal strike as having
lost his employment. It possesses the right and prerogative to terminate the union officers from service.

2. Petitioners who are shop stewards are considered union officers.

Officers normally mean those who hold defined offices.

An officer is any person occupying a position identified as an office.

An office may He provided in the constitution of a labor union or by the union itself in its CBA with the employer.

An office is a word of familiar usage and should be construed according to the sense of the thing.

shop steward is appointed by the Union in a shop,

department, or plant serves as representative of the Union, charged with negotiating and adjustment of grievances of
employees with the supervisor of the employer.

me is the representative of the Union members in a building or. other workplace

Black's Law Dictionary defines a shop steward as

m a union, official who represents members in a particular de- partment.

His duties include the conduct of initial negotia-

cn . tions for settlement of IP^svaiices «

In this case, instead of playing the role of "peacemakers and grievance solvers, the petitioners-shop stewards
participated in the strike.

Thus, like the officers and directors of petitioner Union who joined the strike, petitioners-shop stew- ards also
deserve the penalty of dismissal from their employ ment.

13. Ramirez vs Polyson

Facts:
The instant case arose from a labor dispute, between herein petitioners and respondent corporation, which was
certified by the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to the NLRC for compulsory
arbitration.

Obrero filed a petition for certification election.

Polyson, met with the ofii- cers of Obrero, led by the unioxn president, Ramirez;
Obrero asked that it be voluntarily recognized by Polyson as the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file
employees of polyson, but the latter refused and opted for a .certification election;

furious, at such refusal, the Obrero offi- cers threatened the management that the union will show its collective
strength in the coming days;

on June 7, 2011, Poly- son received a rush order from one of its clients for the pro- duction of 100,000 pieces of
plastic bags;

the management of IPolyson informed the operators of its Cutting Section that they would.be needing workers to
work overtime because of the said order; based on the usual practice of the company- those who intend to perform
overtime work were expected to sign the "time sheet" indicating their willingness to work after their shift;

the supervisors approached the operators but were told that they would be unable to work overtime because they
have other commitments after their shifts

the supervisors then requested that the operators set aside their time for the following day to work beyond their
regular shift;

on June 8, 2011, five (5) operators indicated their desire to work overtime;4 however, after their regular shift, three
of the five workers did not work overtime which resulted in the delay in delivery of the client's order and even- tually
resulted in the cancellation of the said order by reason Of such delay.

when management asked the workers, who initially manifested their desire to work overtime, to indicate in the time
sheet the reason for their failure to do so, two of the three workers, namely, Leuland Visca and Samuel Tuting gave
the same reason, to wit: "Ayaw nilalng iba na mag-OT [ouertiiuej akT^s

the management then con- ducted an investigation and a hearing where Visca affirmed his previous claim that
petitioners were the ones who pres- sured him to desist from rendering overtime work.
Tuting executed a written statement claiming that herein petitioners induced or threatened them not to work
overtime.«
)

the management informed petitioners that it has decided to terminate petitioners' employment on the ground that
they instigated an illegal concerted activity resuiting in losses to the company.

"Obrero filed a Notice of Strike which was predicated on various grounds, among
which was the alleged illegal dismissal of herein petitioners.

the NLRC rendered its Decision" finding petitioners illegally dismissed from their employment.

Issue: W/N petitioners were illegally dismissed.

Ruling:
No.

1. ^[t]he evidence on record clearly establishes that herein [petitioners] resorted to an illicit activity

The act of inducing and/or threatening workers not to render overtime work, given the circumstances surrounding
the instant case, was undoubtedly a calculated effort amounting to 'overtime boy- cotf or "work slowdown.'

2. union officers are duty-bound to guide their members to respect the law.*'

, if the officers urge the members to violate the law and defy the duly-constituted authorities, their dismissal from the
service is a just penalty or sanction for their unlawful acts.fc

3. evidence presented by Polyson has proven that petitioners are indeed guilty of instigating two employees to
abstain from working overtime.

In the Cutting Section Overtime S^heet27 dated June. 8, 2011, employees Visca and Tuting indicated . that “Ayaw
nilang mag overtime ako” as the reason why they did not render overtime work despite having earlier manifested
their desire to do so.

Visca identified peti- tioners as the persons who pressured them not to work over- time—

Tuting, in his written statement,w also pointed to petitioners as the ones who told him not to work OT.

4. The slowdown was indeed planned.

[petitioners] were completely aware of and, in fact, were responsible for what transpired dur- ing the scheduled
overtime.

5. Petitioners are guilty of instigating the employees to commit slow down.

Jurisprudence defines a slowdown:

"strike on t he installment plan"; as a willful reduction in the rn t. • of work by concerted action of workers fo; the
purpos» - «»1" restricting the output of the employer, in relation to a labor dispute;

Rule: such a slowdown is generally condemned as inherently illicit and unjustifiable,

Rationale: while the employees "continue to work and remain at their positions and accept the wages paid to them,"
they at the same time "select what part of their allotted tasks they care to perform of their own volition or refuse
openly or secretly* to t!,. «-inployer's damage, to do other work"; in other words, i::. ■ v "work on their own .terms.

6. Nothing in the law requires that a slowdown be carefully planned and that it be participated in by a large number of
workers.

The essence of this kind of strike is that workers do not quit their work but simply reduce the rate of work in order to
restrict the output or delay the production of the employer.

Furthermore, it is not necessary that any fixed number of employees should quit their work in order to constitute the
stoppage a strike,

7. strike, as the most preeminent economic weapon of the workers to force management to agree to an equitable
sharing of the joint product of labor and capital, exert some disquieting effects not only on the relationship between
labor and management, but also on the general peace and progress of society and eco- rxcmic well-being of the State.