In sympathy with the labor sector that staged a welga ng bayan to
protest the accelerating prices of oil, the officers of two labor unions
staged a work stoppage that lasted for several days. The companies of
these labor unions filed a petition with the Labor Arbiter to declare
the work stoppage illegal for failure to comply with the following
requirements: (1) filing of notice of strike; (2) securing a strike
vote, and (3) submission of a report of the strike vote to the
Department of Labor and Employment.
The officers of the labor
unions, on the other hand, countered that they did comply with the
necessary requirements. And, they were prevented from going to work due
to the difficulties of finding transportation to work and were concerned
for their safety if in case violence erupted as a result of the welga.
Also, the workers were prevented from reporting for work by being locked
out of the office premises.
The Labor Arbiter held that the
strike was illegal. Thus, the officers of the labor unions lost their
employment status and were eventually terminated by their employers.
On
appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the
Labor Arbiter and held that there was no strike due to the fact that
there was no labor dispute between the employers and the employees.
Thus, the employees were ordered to be reinstatement, without loss of
seniority rights, and with full back wages from the date of their
termination.
The Court of Appeals (CA) however reverted to the ruling of
the Labor Arbiter that the employees failed to prove their compliance
with the requirements of a legal strike. In fact, they never produced
before the Labor Arbiter a copy
The Supreme Court (SC) sustained
the ruling of the CA that an illegal strike did take place. Because the
employees were not able to prove that they informed their employers of
their intention to join the welga ng bayan, their work stoppage was not
entitled to legal protection -
Stoppage of work due to welga ng
bayan 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 welga ng bayan commit an illegal work stoppage.
Moreover, the
SC ruled that union officers must bear the consequences of their
actions when they knowingly participate in an illegal strike.
Article
264 (a) of the Labor Code clearly provides that “any union officer who
knowingly participates in an illegal strike may be declared to have lost
his employment status.” It reiterated that in Gold City Integrated Port
Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, the word “may” in
Article 264 (a) was explained and implies that “[t]he law . . . grants
the employer the option of declaring a union officer who participated in
an illegal strike as having lost his employment.” Thus, the
reinstatement or retention of the striker’s employment, despite his
participation in an illegal strike, is a management prerogative the
Court will not question (Biflex Phils. Labor Union v. Filflex Industrial
and Manufacturing Corp, G.R. No. 155679, 19 December 2006, J.
Carpio-Morales).
source: Manila Times' Column of Benchpress
No comments:
Post a Comment