7/24/2019 Labor Digests - Final Set 7

1/3

LABOR RELATIONSCASE DIGESTS SET 7

Strikes and Lockouts(Art 26!266"

76# To$ota %otors &' Oct 7

77# SSS )s# CA &7* SCRA 2+ ,u-$ +'

7+# Sa.a/an GR No# &&'067

7'# NS1 )s# O)e3era GR# *'70 & %a$ +2

+# 4nion )s# Nest-e GR ++7&!& &' Dec '

+ 4nion )s# NLRC GR &&'2' ,une

+2# 5eo-es Industria- and Co..ercia-

E.-o$ees 8okers Or9 )s 5eo-es Industria- and

Co..ercia-Cor (5INCOCO"

G#R# No# 76*7 &* %arc/ &'+2

in the absence of enforceable provisions in thefederations consti preventing disaliation of alocal union, a local may sever its relationship w/its parent

1ACTS:After the termination of the agreement between

FTL and !"#$$, an election of the %i&al$hapter of the FTL was conducted' (ith the)nowledge of *% !"#$$ individual petitionerswere elected' The new ocers + - other **se.ecuted a certication stating that they aremembers of FTL, have changed the name oftheir union 0to !"$*( !eoples "ndustrial +$ommercial *mployees (or)ers rg1, havealiated this new union with the FF( 0Federationof Free (or)ers1' 2nion counsel Atty Advinculawas disauthori&ed to represent the signatories3contains no reason or cause for the change ofunion name

!agayatan, as chapter pres of FTL + not as presof !"$*(, notied in writing !"#$$ of theirdesire to terminate the wor)ing agreement replied that in time they will' $onse4uently, FTLe.pelled petitioners on the ground of disloyalty +wor)ing for the interest of another laborfederation' !agayatan, this time as pres of!"$*(, led a notice of stri)e on the ground of*%s refusal to bargain' FTL demanded !"#$$to dismiss petitioners by enforcing themaintenance of membership shop of the wor)ing

agreement + FTL + !"#$$ e.ecuted a $5Afor 6 yrs'

!"$*( then held a stri)e !"#$$ instructedthem to return to wor) none returned !"#$$ posted again a notice advising them tosignify their ability to wor) + submit to policeclearance + medical + physical e.am !"$*(signied its intent to return to wor) but none of

the stri)ers were allowed to wor)'

From there, arose 6 cases resolved by the $"%'a' Art 7 of the wor)ing agreement re4uired themaintenance of the membership in the federationas a condition for continued employmentb' $ause for e.pulsion was - e.pressly stated inthe agreementc' FTL is the sole + *5% limitation topetitioners right to leave the union + 8oinanother

#o 2L! + that the stri)e was not on account of

any 2L!

ISS4E:(# petitioners act of disaliating from themother federation constitutes an act of disloyaltyto the union w/c would warrant their e.pulsion +conse4uently their dismissal from the company inpursuance to the union security clause in the $5A

!etitioners contend that there was no disloyalty they merely changed the name of their union

;ELD:#' Assailed decision is set aside'

(hile the court is not convinced that they 8ustchanged their name 0having registered the newunion + aliated it w/ a new federation FF(1petitioners do not dismissal'

The validity of the dismissal pursuant to securityclause of the $5A hinges on the validity of thedisaliation of the local union from thefederation'

The right to withdraw from the federationdepends on the $5L nothing shown in therecords that the local union was e.presslyforbidden to disaliate from the federation butfor the union security clause' 5ut this is rebuttedby the fact that 9: 0-/;

7/24/2019 Labor Digests - Final Set 7

2/3

Ne< decision:reinstatement w/ bac) wages'

+# NATIONAL 1EDERATION )s# NLRC GR&&066 &* Dec 7

+0# ILA AT B4=LOD NG %ANGGAGAA(IB%" )s#

NLRC G#R# No# '&'+ 27 ,une &''&

1ACTS:2pon the e=ectivity of %A ;>7>, the union, "law at5u)lod ng ?anggagawa 0the 2nion1 presented to@an ?iguel $orporation 0@?$1 a demand forcorrection of the signicant distortion in thewor)ers wage' Bowever, the 2nion alleged thatthey were ignored' To compel @?$ to correct the

distortion in their wages brought about by theimplementation of %A ;;C< and %A ;>7> tonewlyDhired employees, wor)ers who aremembers of the 2nion refused to wor) beyond 9hours everyday at the !olo !lant of @?$'

@?$ claimed that the abandonment of the longDstanding schedule of wor) which the wor)ersEwelcomed and encouraged before and thereversion to the 9Dhour shift caused substantiallosses to @?$' @?$ led an action to declare thestri)e or slowdown illegal in the #L%$'

"t contends that the coordinated reduction by the2nionGs members of the wor) time, willingly andconsistently observed by them, causing nanciallosses to the employer in order to compel it toyield to the demand for correction of wagedistortions, is an illegal and unprotectedactivity' "t is, @?$ argues, contrary to the law andto the $5A'

ISS4E:(# the stri)e or slowdown is illegal as it iscontrary to law and to the $5A between @?$ andthe 2nionH

;ELD:I*@' @tri)es or slowdowns may be forbidden orrestricted by law or contract' "n the particularinstance of distortions of the wage structurewithin an establishment resulting from theapplication of any prescribed wage increase byvirtue of a law or wage order, @ection 6 of %A;>7> prescribes a specic, detailed andcomprehensive procedure for the correctionthereof, thereby implicitly e.cluding stri)es or

loc)outs or other concerted activities as modes osettlement of the issue'

@ection -;, $hapter " of the "%% of %'A' ;>7>after reiterating the policy that wage distortionsbe rst settled voluntarily by the parties andeventually by compulsory arbitration, declaresthat, Any issue involving wage distortion shalnot be a ground for a stri)e/loc)out'

$5A prescribes a similar eschewal of stri)es oother similar or related concerted activities as amode of resolving disputes or controversiesgenerally, said agreement clearly stating thatsettlement of all disputes, disagreements ocontroversies of any )ind should be achieved bythe stipulated grievance procedure and ultimatelyby arbitration'

The 2nion was thus prohibited to declare andhold a stri)e or otherwise engage in nonDpeacefuconcerted activities for the settlement of itscontroversy with @?$ in respect of wage

distortions, or for that matterJ any other issueinvolving or relating to wages, hours of wor)conditions of employment and/or employeremployee relations' The partial stri)e oconcerted refusal by the 2nion members to followthe veDyearDold wor) schedule which they hadtherefore been observing, resorted to as a meansof coercing correction of wage distortions, wastherefore forbidden by law and contract and, onthis account, illegal'

*ven if there were no such legal prohibition, andeven assuming the controversy really did no

involve the wage distortions caused by %A ;>7>the activity in 4uestion would still be illicibecause it is contrary to the wor)ersG e.plicicontractual commitment that there shall be nostri)es, wal)outs, stoppage or slowdown of wor)boycotts, secondary boycotts, refusal to handleany merchandise, pic)eting, sitDdown stri)es oany )ind, sympathetic or general stri)es, or anyother interference with any of the operations othe $?!A#I during the term of $5A

The legislative intent that solution of the problemof wage distortions shall be sought by voluntary

negotiation or abitration, and not by stri)esloc)outs, or other concerted activities of theemployees or management, is made clear in therules implementing %A ;>7> issued by the@ecretary of Labor and *mployment -7 pursuantto the authority granted by @ection -6 of the Act-6 @ection -;, $hapter " of these implementingrules, after reiterating the policy that wagedistortions be rst settled voluntarily by theparties and eventually by compulsory arbitrationdeclares that, Any issue involving wagedistortion shall not be a ground for astri)e/loc)out'

7/24/2019 Labor Digests - Final Set 7

3/3

9' 2#"K*%@"TI F @A# A2@T"#'%' #o' -;M;67 79 ?arch 7