Republic of the PhilippinesCity of TaguigTaguig City UniversityGen. Santos Avenue, Central Bicutan, Taguig City

A Term Paper Presented to the Faculty of Graduate Schoolof Taguig City University

Presented to:

RENATO R. SADARAN, Ph. D

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the subject

CRISIS INTERVENTION AND MANAGEMENT

by:

Jeyson G. MacaraigDennis H. MoralesArman T. Duque

STRIKE AND LOCKOUT

DEFINITION OF TERMS

1. NATIONAL CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION BOARD or NCMB, for short, refers to the agency attached to the Department of Labor and Employment principally in charge of the settlement of labor disputes through conciliation, mediation and the promotion of voluntary approaches to labor dispute prevention and settlement.

1. CONCILIATOR-MEDIATOR official of the NCMB whose principal function is to settle and dispose potential and actual labor disputes through conciliation and preventive mediation including the promotion and encouragement of voluntary approaches to labor dispute prevention and settlement.

1. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION NLRC, for short, refers to the agency attached to the Department of Labor and Employment in charge of deciding labor cases through compulsory arbitration.

1. BARGAINING DEADLOCK failure to agree on the terms and conditions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the management and the union.

1. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE - either by employers or labor organizations as enumerated under Article 248 and 249 of the Labor Code, as amended.

1. PREVENTIVE MEDIATION CASE refers to the potential or brewing labor dispute which is the subject of a formal or informal request for conciliation and mediation assistance sought by either or both parties in order to remedy, contain or prevent its degeneration into a full blown dispute through amicable settlement.

1. INTRA-UNION DISPUTE refers to a case involving the control, supervision and management of the internal affairs of a duly registered labor union such as those relating to specific violations of the unions constitution and by-laws.

8.INTER-UNION DISPUTE - refers to cases involving a petition for certification election and direct certification filed by a duly registered labor organization which is seeking to be recognized as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank and file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit of a company, firm or establishment.

9.VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION a third party settlement of a labor dispute involving the mutual consent by the representative of the company and the labor union involved in a labor dispute to submit their case for arbitration.

10. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING- is a process of negotiations between employers and a group of employees aimed at reaching agreements that regulate working conditions. The interests of the employees are commonly presented by representatives of a trade union to which the employees belong. The collective agreements reached by these negotiations usually set out wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms, and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs

11. STRIKE-BREAKER

A strike-breaker means any person who obstructs, impedes or interferes with by force, violence, coercion, threats or intimidation any peaceful picket by employees during any labor controversy.

12 STRIKE AREA includes: (a) the establishment of the employer struck against including run-away shops, factories or warehouses and other

1. WHAT IS STRIKE AND LOCKOUT?1. 1. STRIKE means any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of the employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. (Art. 212 (o), Labor Code, as amended by Sec. 4, R. A. 6715)

2. LOCKOUT means the temporary refusal of an employer to furnish work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. (Article 212 (p) Labor Code, as amended by Section 4, R.A. 6715).

1. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF STRIKES? 1. LEGAL STRIKE one called for a valid purpose and conducted through means allowed by law.

2. ILLEGAL STRIKE one staged for a purpose not recognized by law, or if for a valid purpose, conducted through means not sanctioned by law.

1. ECONOMIC STRIKE one staged by workers to force wage or other economic concessions from the employer which he is not required by law to grant (Consolidated Labor Association of the Phil. vs. Marsman and Company, 11 SCRA 589)

4. ULP STRIKE one called to protest against the employers acts of unfair labor practice enumerated in Article 248 of the Labor Code, as amended, including gross violation of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and union busting.

5. SLOWDOWN STRIKE one staged without the workers quitting their work but merely slackening or by reducing their normal work output.

6. WILD-CAT STRIKE one declared and staged without filing the required notice of strike and without the majority approval of the recognized bargaining agent.

7. SIT DOWN STRIKE one where the workers stop working but do not leave their place of work. 3.WHAT IS AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE?

A.An industrial or labor dispute 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 employer and employee. (Article 212 (1) Labor Code, as amended by Section 4, R.A. 6715)

1. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT TO STRIKE AND LOCKOUT?A.The right to strike is a constitutional and legal right of the workers as the employers have the inherent and statutory right to lockout, all within the context of labor relations and collective bargaining. It is a means of last resort and presupposes that the duty to bargain in good faith has been fulfilled and other voluntary modes of dispute settlement have been tried and exhausted. (Guidelines Governing Labor Relations).

1. WHO MAY DECLARE A STRIKE OR LOCKOUT?

Any certified or duly recognized bargaining representative may declare a strike in cases of bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practice. Likewise, the employer may declare a lockout in the same cases.In the absence of a certified or duly recognized bargaining representative, any legitimate labor organization in the establishment may declare a strike but only on the ground of unfair labor practice. (Section 2, Rule XIII, Book V, Omnibus Rules Implementing The Labor Code, as amended).

6. WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF A LAWFUL STRIKE OR LOCKOUT?A.The requirements for a valid strike or lockout are as follows:It must be based on a valid and factual ground;

A strike or lockout NOTICE shall be filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) at least 15 days before the intended date of the strike or lockout if the issues raised are unfair labor practices, or at least 30 days before the intended date thereof if the issue involves bargaining deadlock.

In cases of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute UNION BUSTING where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately after the strike vote is conducted and the result thereof submitted to the Department of Labor and Employment.

1. A strike must be approved by a majority vote of the members of the Union and a lockout must be approved by a majority vote of the members of the Board of Directors of the Corporation or Association or of the partners in a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose.

1. A strike or lockout VOTE shall be reported to the NCMB-DOLE Regional Branch at least 7 days before the intended strike or lockout subject to the cooling-off period.

In the event the result of the strike/lockout ballot is filed within the cooling-off period, the 7-day requirement shall be counted from the day following the expiration of the cooling-off period. (NSFW vs. Ovejera, G.R. No. 59743, May 31, 1982)

In case of dismissal from employment of union officers which may constitute union busting, the time requirement for the filing of the Notice of Strike shall be dispensed with but the strike vote requirement being mandatory in character, shall in every case be complied with.

The dispute must not be the subject of an assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Secretary of Labor and Employment, a certification for compulsory or voluntary arbitration nor a subject of a pending case involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout.

7.WHAT ARE THE VALID GROUNDS FOR DECLARING A STRIKE OR LOCKOUT?

The law recognizes two grounds for the valid exercise of the right to strike or lockout, namely:

Collective Bargaining Deadlock (CBD) and/orUnfair Labor Practice (ULP)

A.Any notice which does not conform to the foregoing requirements shall be deemed not having been filed.

8.WHAT ARE THE PROHIBITED ACTS AND PRACTICES? A. 1.Declaring a strike or lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union disputes or on issues brought to voluntary or compulsory arbitration.

2.Declaring a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively or without first having filed the required notice or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the Regional Branch of the NCMB.

4.Obstructing, impending or interfering with by force, violence, coercion, threats or intimidation any peaceful picketing by employees during any labor controversy or in the exercise of their right to self-organization or collective bargaining, or aiding or abetting such obstruction or interference.

5.Employing any strike breaker or being employed as a strike-breaker.

6.No public official or employee, including officers and personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, of the Philippine National Police, or any armed person shall bring in, introduce or escort, in any manner, any individual who seeks to replace strikers in entering or leaving the premises of a strike area, or work in place of strikers.

Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prevent the aforementioned officials, employees or peace officers from taking any measure necessary to maintain peace and order and/or to protect life and property.

7.Stationary picket and the use of means like placing of objects to constitute permanent blockade or to effectively close points of entry or exit in company premises.

8.Any act of violence, coercion or intimidation by any picketer.

9.The obstruction of the free ingress to or egress from the employers premises for lawful purposes.

10.Obstruction of public thoroughfares while engaged in picketing.

9. WHEN MAY A STRIKE OR LOCKOUT BE DECLARED ILLEGAL?A.A strike or lockout may be declared illegal if any of the requirements for a valid strike or lockout is not complied with.

It may also be declared illegal if it is based on non-strikeable issues or if the issues involved are already the subject of arbitration.

During a strike or lockout, when either of the parties commit prohibited acts or practices, the strike or lockout may be declared illegal.

10. WHO HAS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE LEGALITY OF STRIKE AND LOCKOUT? A.In general, the Labor Arbiter in the appropriate Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission has the power to determine questions involving the legality or the illegality of a strike or lockout upon the filing of a proper complaint and after due hearing.

Where the matter of legality or illegality of strike is raised in the dispute over which the Secretary assumed jurisdiction or in disputes certified by the Secretary to the Commission for compulsory arbitration, the same may be resolved by the Secretary or the Commission, respectively. (International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs. Secretary of Labor and Associated Labor Union, G.R. No. 92981-83, January 9, 1992.)

11. CAN ANY PERSON PERFORMING ANY PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES BE CHARGED BEFORE THE COURT?

Yes. They may be charged before the appropriate civil and criminal courts.

12.WHAT IS THE PENALTY IMPOSABLE?

A.Any person violating any of the provisions of Article 265 of the Labor Code (performing any of the above prohibited activities) shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding P500.00 and/or imprisonment for not less than one (1) day nor more than six (6) months.

If the person so convicted is a foreigner, he shall be subjected to immediate and summary deportation and will be permanently barred from re-entering the country without the special permission of the President.

If the act is at the same time a violation of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), a prosecution under the Labor Code will preclude prosecution for the same act under the RPC or vice-versa.

1. CAN THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP) BE DEPUTIZED TO ENFORCE ORDERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT?

A.Yes. The Secretary of Labor and Employment, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) or any Labor Arbiter may deputize the PNP to enforce any of its order, award or decision.1. IN CASE THE PNP IS DEPUTIZED TO ENFORCE ORDERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WHAT WILL BE ITS ROLE?In such a case, the role of the PNP is merely to assist the sheriff or the appropriate DOLE Officers in enforcing the decision, award or order. It shall maintain peace and order and public safety in the area where the decision, award or order is to be enforced. It shall also give security to the officers enforcing the decision, award or order. (Please see also Article 264 (d), Article 266 of the Labor Code, as amended, and Guidelines for the Conduct of PNP During Strikes, Lockouts and Labor Disputes in General, Oct. 22, 1987).

Unfair Labor Practices of Employers

It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice:a.To interfere with restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization

b.To require as a condition of employment that a person or an employee shall not join a labor organization or shall withdraw from one to which he belongs; c.To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization;

d.To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization;e.To discriminate in regard to wages, hours or work and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization;

f.To dismiss, discharge, or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony against the employer;

g.To violate the duty to bargain collectively;

h.To pay negotiation or attorneys fees to the union or its officers or agents as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute; ori.To violate a collective bargaining agreement.

Unfair Labor Practices of Labor Organizations

It shall be unlawful for a labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives to commit any of the following unfair labor practices:

a.To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization: Provided, that labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership;

b. To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee, including discrimination against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied to or terminate an employee on any ground other than the usual terms and conditions under which membership or continuation of membership is made available to other members;

c.To violate the duty or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer, provided it is the representative of the employees;

d.To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or agree to pay or deliver any money or other things of value, in the nature of an exaction, for services which are not performed or not to be performed including the demand for a fee for union negotiations;

e.To ask for or accept negotiation or attorneys fees from employers as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute; or

f. To violate a collective bargaining agreement.

RELATED CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

1. RELATED CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 18 Article II. The State affirms labor as a prime social economic force. It shall protect the right of workers and promote their welfare.

Sec. 3 Article XIII The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.

It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work and living wage. They shall participate in policy and decision-making process affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.

The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.

The State shall regulate the relations between the workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable return on investments, and to expansion and growth.

1. PROVISIONS FROM THE LABOR CODE

Art. 211 Declaration of Policy

1. It is the policy of the State:

1. To promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as modes of settling labor or industrial disputes;

1. To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the enhancement of democracy and the promotion of social justice and developments;

1. To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement;

1. To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and obligations as union members and as employees;

1. To provide an adequate administrative machinery for the expeditious settlement of labor or industrial dispute;

1. To ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace; and

1. To ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare.

B.To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating the relations between the employers and employees by means of agreement freely entered into through collective bargaining, no court or administrative agency or official shall have the power to set or fix wages, rates of pay, hours of work or other terms and conditions of employment, except as otherwise provided under this Code.

Art. 248.Unfair Labor Practices of Employers.

It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice:

a.To interfere with restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization;

b.To require as a condition of employment that a person or an employee shall not join a labor organization or shall withdraw from one to which he belongs;

c.To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization;

d.To initiate, dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization;

e.To discriminate in regard to wages, hours or work and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective bargaining agent. Employees of an appropriate collective bargaining unit who are not members of the recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining agent, if such non-union members accept the benefits under the collective agreement. Provided, that the individual authorization required under Art. 242, paragraph (o) of this Code shall not apply to the non-members of the recognized collective bargaining agent;

f.To dismiss, discharge, or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under this Code;

g.To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code;

h.To pay negotiation or attorneys fees to the union or its officers or agents as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute; or

i.To violate a collective bargaining agreement.

The provision of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, only the officers and agents of corporation, association or partnership who have actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practice shall be held criminally liable.

Art. 249.Unfair Labor Practices of Labor Organizations.

It shall be unlawful for a labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives to commit any of the following unfair labor practices:

a.To restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization: Provided, that labor organization shall have the right to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership;

1. To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee, including discrimination against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied to or terminate an employee on any ground other than the usual terms and conditions under which membership or continuation of membership is made available to other members;

c.To violate the duty or refuse to bargain collectively with the employer, provided it is the representative of the employees;

d.To cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or agree to pay or deliver any money or other things of value, in the nature of an exaction, for services which are not performed or not to be performed including the demand for a fee for union negotiations;

e.To ask for or accept negotiation or attorneys fees from employers as part of the settlement of any issue in collective bargaining or any other dispute; or

1. To violate a collective bargaining agreement.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph notwithstanding, only the officers, members of governing boards, representatives or agents or members of labor associations or organizations who have actually participated in, authorized or ratified unfair labor practices shall be held criminally liable.

Art. 263. Strikes, Picketing and Lockouts

a.It is the policy of the State to encourage free trade unionism and free collective bargaining;

b.Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection. The right of legitimate labor organization to strike and picket and of employers to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be recognized and respected. However, no labor union may strike and no employer may declare a lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union disputes;

c.In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Department at least 30 days before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately;

d.The notice must be in accordance with such implementing rules and regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment may promulgate;

e.During the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of the Department to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. Should the dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days from the mandatory filing of the notice the labor union may declare a strike.

f.A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by a secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by the majority of the board of directors of the corporation or association or of the partners in a partnership, obtained by a secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration of the disputes based on substantially the same grounds considered when the strike or lockout vote was taken. The Department may, at its own initiative or upon the request of any affected party, supervise the conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the union or employer shall furnish the Department the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to the cooling-off period herein provided.

g.When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission (National

Labor Relations Commission) for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption of certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and condition prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as with such order as he may issue to enforce the same.

In line with the national concern for and the highest respect accorded to the right of patients to life and health, strikes and lockouts in hospitals, clinics and similar medical institutions shall, to every extent possible, be avoided, and all serious efforts, not only by labor and management but government as well, be exhausted to substantially minimize, if not prevent, their adverse effects on such life and health, through the exercise, however legitimate, by labor of its right to strike and by management to lockout. In labor disputes adversely affecting the continued operation of such hospitals, clinics or medical institutions, it shall be the duty of the striking union or locking-out employer to provide and maintain an effective skeletal workforce of medical and other health personnel, whose movement and services shall be unhampered and unrestricted, as are necessary to insure the proper and adequate protection of the life of its patients, most especially emergency cases, for the duration of the strike or lockout.

In such cases, therefore, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may immediately assume, within twenty-four (24) hours from knowledge of the occurrence of such a strike or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or certify it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. For this purpose, the contending parties are strictly enjoined to comply with such orders, prohibitions and/or injunctions as are issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission, under pain of immediate disciplinary action, including dismissal or loss of employment status or payment by the locking-out employer or backwages, damages and other affirmative relief, even criminal prosecution against either or both of them.

The foregoing notwithstanding, the President of the Philippines shall not be precluded from determining the industries that, in his opinion, are indispensable to the national interest, and from intervening at any time and assuming jurisdiction over any such labor dispute in order to settle or terminate the same.

h.The Secretary of Labor and Employment, the Commission or the voluntary arbitrator shall decide or resolve the dispute, as the case may be. The decision of the President, the Secretary of Labor and Employment, the Commission or the voluntary arbitrator shall be final and executory ten (10 ) calendar days after receipt thereof by the parties.

GUIDELINES IN THE CONDUCT OF PNP PERSONNEL, PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS AND COMPANY GUARD FORCES DURING STRIKES, LOCKOUTS AND LABOR DISPUTES IN GENERAL

In order to promote public interest and safety, industrial peace and stability, and peace and order, the following guidelines are hereby prescribed to govern the official conduct of all members of the PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP) during strikes, lockout and labor disputes in general:

GENERAL POLICY

1.It is the essence of these guidelines that labor disputes are within the sole jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and/or through its appropriate agencies while matters involving peace and order, are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) through the Philippine National Police (PNP); but as labor disputes involving strikes and lockouts have peace and order implications, close coordination between the two departments is necessary.

2.The involvement of the PNP during strikes, lockouts and labor disputes in general shall be limited to the maintenance of peace and order, enforcement of laws and legal orders of duly constituted authorities.

1. Any request for police assistance issued by duly constituted authorities shall specify the acts to be performed or conducted by PNP personnel.

1. Whenever the assistance of the PNP is necessary, elements of the local police force should be called upon to render assistance. Such request for assistance shall be addressed to the Regional Director, National Capital Regional Command (NCRC), or the City Director in the case of cities, or the Provincial Director in the case of provinces or cities not under the City Police Command. Unless directed by the President or personally by the Chairman of the National Police Commission upon consultation with the Secretary of Labor and Employment or when requested by the latter, personnel from the Armed Forces of the Philippines shall not intervene nor be utilized in any labor dispute.

1. Insofar as practicable, no officer of the law shall be allowed to render services in connection with a strike or lockout if there is question or complaint as regards his relationship by affinity or consanguinity to any official/leader of the parties in the controversy or if he has financial or pecuniary interest therein.

6.A peace keeping detail shall be established in a strike or lockout area when requested by DOLE or as the Regional Director, National Capital Regional Command, City Police Command/Provincial Director may deem necessary for the purpose of maintaining peace and order in the area.

7.Personnel detailed as peace keeping force in a strike or lockout areas shall be in uniform, with proper nameplate at all times. They shall exercise maximum tolerance and shall observe courtesy and strict neutrality in their dealings with both parties to the controversy bearing in mind that the parties to the labor dispute are not their adversaries but their partners in the quest for industrial peace and human dignity. As much as possible, they shall not inflict any physical harm upon strikers and/or picketers or any person involved in the strike/lockout. When called for by the situation or when all other peaceful and non-violent means have been exhausted, law enforcers may employ, as a last resort only such force as may be necessary and reasonable to prevent or repel an aggression.

PEACE KEEPING DETAILS

8.The peace keeping detail shall not be stationed in the picket (or confrontation line) but should be stationed such that their presence may deter the commission of criminal acts or any untoward incident from either side. The members of the peace keeping detail shall stay outside a 50 meter radius from the picket line, except, if the 50 meter radius includes a public thoroughfare, they may station themselves in such public thoroughfare for the purpose of insuring the free flow of traffic.

ARRESTS/SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

9.Arrests and searches in strike/lockout areas shall be effected only on the basis of an existing and valid Warrant of Arrest/Search and Seizure or in accordance with Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Whenever possible, union representatives (for laborers/workers) or management representatives (for management personnel) shall be requested to facilitate the service of the Warrant of Arrest/ Search and Seizure Order.

10.Any person who, during the strike/lockout, violates any law, statute, ordinance or any provision of Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 or the Public Assembly Act may be arrested and charged accordingly in court.

11.Any person who obstructs the free and lawful ingress to and egress from the employers premises in contemplation of Article 264, par. (e) of the Labor Code, as amended, or who obstructs public thoroughfares may be arrested and accordingly charged in court.

12.The DOLE shall immediately be informed by the PNP unit concerned in cases of violence in the picket line. When arrests are made pursuant to a warrant issued by competent authorities, the arresting officers shall coordinate with the Leaders/ Representatives of the union and management, as the case may be, and also inform them of the arrest and the reason thereof.

SERVICE OF DOLE, COURT OR LAWFUL ORDERS/WRITS

1. The service of DOLE, court or lawful order/writs is the primary concern of the DOLE representative, sheriff, representative of the government agency issuing the order respectively. Before service of the Order, the DOLE representative, sheriff or representative of the agency issuing the order shall coordinate and dialogue with the leaders of the striking group and the representatives of management and shall inform them of the nature and content of the Order to be enforced including possible consequences of any defiance thereto. Whenever necessary, coordination with the local government units shall be made by the DOLE and the other concerned agencies issuing the Order to facilitate the service of Order and to prevent unnecessary intervention.

14.Orders enjoining any picketing, strike, or lockout are enforceable strictly in accordance with Articles 218 and 263 of the Labor Code, as amended.

1. Any person who is not a laborer/worker of the company/ business establishment on strike but has joined the striking laborers/workers in their picket or strike, shall be treated by the law enforcers in the same manner as the strikers/picketers. If such persons presence in the strike area obstructs the peaceful picketing, the law enforcers shall compel him to leave the area. The conduct of rallies and marches on issues not relation to the labor dispute shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Batas Pambansa 880.

ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION

16.Except as provided in these guidelines the matter of determining whether a strike, picket or lockout is legal or not should be left to DOLE and its appropriate agencies. PNP elements are enjoined from interfering in a strike, picket or lockout, except as herein provided, for the sole reason that is illegal.

17.Picketing as part of the freedom of expression during the strikes shall be respected provided it is peaceful. Shanties and structures set-up to effectively block lawful ingress to and egress from company premises for legal purposes and the free passage in public thoroughfares shall be summarily demolished in accordance with Article 694 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

18.No personal escort shall be provided to any of the parties to the controversy unless so directed by the competent authority. Whenever escorts are to be provided to any, the other party shall be informed accordingly. All escorts shall be in uniform at all times.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

1. All complaints/reports leveled against any personnel of the PNP on the occasion of strike/lockout shall be possessed and resolved in accordance with the PNP Administrative Disciplinary Machinery pursuant to Chapter III, paragraph (c) of Republic Act 6975. For DOLE personnel, the complaints shall be processed in accordance with the DOLE Manual on the Disposition of Administrative Cases. Whenever applicable, and if the evidence so warrants, appropriate disciplinary action shall be taken against the erring personnel.

ROLE OF SECURITY GUARDS

1. Conduct of security guards during strikes and lockouts shall be in accordance with Rule 18 of the Implementing Rules of Republic Act 5487.

Jacinto vs. CA

Petitioners are public school teachers from various schools in Metropolitan Manila. Between the period September 17 to 21, 1990, they incurred unauthorized absences in connection with the mass actions then staged. Consequently, due to their failure to heed the return-to-work order, DECS Sec. Cario immediately issued formal charges and preventive suspension orders against them.

ISSUE: Were the public school teachers penalized for the exercise of their right to assemble peacefully and to petition the government for redress of grievances?

HELD: The petitioners here, except Merlinda Jacinto, were not penalized for the exercise of their right to assemble peacefully and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Rather, the Civil Service Commission found them guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for having absented themselves without proper authority, from their schools during regular school days, in order to participate in the mass protest, their absence ineluctably resulting in the non-holding of classes and in the deprivation of students of education, for which they were responsible. Had petitioners availed themselves of their free time -- recess, after classes, weekends or holidays -- to dramatize their grievances and to dialogue with the proper authorities within the bounds of law, no one -- not the DECS, the CSC or even this Court -- could have held them liable for the valid exercise of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. As it was, the temporary stoppage of classes resulting from their activity necessarily disrupted public services, the very evil sought to be forestalled by the prohibition against strikes by government workers. Their act by its nature was enjoined by the Civil Service law, rules and regulations, for which they must, therefore, be made answerable.

MANILA PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, FIDEL FABABIER MERLIN ANONUEVO, MINDA GALANG and other teacher-members so numerous similarly situated vs. HON. PERFECTO LAGUIO JR

A "mass action" was undertaken by some 800 public school teachers, among them members of the petitioning associations to "dramatize and highlight" the teachers' plight resulting from the alleged failure of the public authorities to act upon grievances that had time and again been brought to the latter's attention. The petition alleges in great detail the character and origins of those grievances as perceived by the petitioners, and the attempts to negotiate their correction.

ISSUE: Are employees in the public service prohibited from forming unions and holding strikes?

HELD: Employees in the public (civil) service, unlike those in the private sector, do not have the right to strike, although guaranteed the right to self-organization, to petition Congress for the betterment of employment terms and conditions and to negotiate with appropriate government agencies for the improvement of such working conditions as are not fixed by law.

Public school teachers have the right to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances but NOT during class hours, for then this would be a strike, which is illegal for themSection 82. Prohibitions; Penalties. As professional police, fire and jail officers and members responsible for the maintenance of peace and order and public safety, the members and officers of the PNP, Fire or Jail Force are hereby prohibited from engaging in strikes, rallies, demonstrations and other similar concerted activities, or performing other acts prejudicial to good order and police discipline. Any PNP, fire or Jail Force member found guilty by final judgment of violating the provisions of the preceding paragraph shall be dismissed from the service without prejudice to whatever criminal or civil liability he may have incurred in relation to such violations.

In May 2000, Mediator-Arbiter Ma. Zosima Lameyra issued an order certifying Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Workers Association as the exclusive bargaining agent of all Toyota rank-and-file employees. Toyota filed a motion for reconsideration assailing the said order. Lameyra denied the motion and Toyota eventually appealed the order before the DOLE Secretary.Meanwhile, the Union submitted its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) proposals to Toyota but the latter refused to bargain pending its appeal before the DOLE Secretary. The Union then filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). The NCMB converted the notice of strike to a preventive mediation considering that the DOLE Secretary was yet to decide on Toyotas appeal.In relation to Toyotas appeal, the parties were invited to a hearing. Union members were not allowed to attend the hearing as they were aptly represented by the Union. But despite this, many Union members and officers failed to render overtime and work on the following day which caused Toyota to lose P53,849,991.00. The union members went to the hearing and assembled before the Bureau of Labor Relations.Subsequently, Toyota terminated 227 employees. The terminated employees allegedly abandoned their work.This resulted to another rally within Toyotas premises as the strikers barricaded the entrances of Toyota preventing non-strikers from going to work.In April 2001, the DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and issued a return-to-work order. The Union ended its strike in the same month. However, in May and June 2001, union members still conducted rallies and pickets.ISSUE: Whether or not the strikes conducted by the Union on different occasions are illegal.HELD: Yes. The strike conducted before the BLR as well as the strike conducted when the 227 employees were terminated is illegal because both did not go through the proper procedure required by the Labor Code. It cannot be said that the strike conducted before the BLR is beyond the ambit of the strikes contemplated in the Labor Code. The Union argues that the strike is actually a protest directed against the government and is covered by their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. The SC disagreed with this argument because the Union failed to provide evidence that the Mediator-Arbiter was biased against them. Further, if this were the kind of protest they were claiming, they should have secured a rally permit. Further still, this case involves a labor dispute. The employees may shroud their strike as mere demonstrations covered by the constitution but in reality these are temporary work stoppages.The strikes conducted after the DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute are illegal for they violated the return-to-work order.The Supreme Court also cited the 6 categories of illegal strikes which are:1. When it is contrary to a specific prohibition of law, such as strike by employees performing governmental functions; or2. When it violates a specific requirement of law, [such as Article 263 of the Labor Code on the requisites of a valid strike]; or3. When it is declared for an unlawful purpose, such as inducing the employer to commit an unfair labor practice against non-union employees; or4. When it employs unlawful means in the pursuit of its objective, such as a widespread terrorism of non-strikers [for example, prohibited acts under Art. 264(e) of the Labor Code]; or5. When it is declared in violation of an existing injunction, [such as injunction, prohibition, or order issued by the DOLE Secretary and the NLRC under Art. 263 of the Labor Code]; or6. When it is contrary to an existing agreement, such as a no-strike clause or conclusive arbitration clause

Strikers: No retreat until PAL surrendersPhilippine Daily Inquirer, 23 July 1998THE STRIKE will last until the airline closes. Unless PAL changes its position and recalls the retrenched workers, we will not stop the strike. So warned Alex Barrientos, president of the 8,000-member ground crew union which yesterday went on strike at 3:30 a.m. to demand that the company recall the 5,000 workers who were laid off last month during the strike launched by the pilot's union. President Estrada appealed to management and striking employees to remain open to an amicable settlement as the labor unrest was harmful to the economy as well as an embarrassment to the country. Sa buong miyembro ng PAL, lagi nating isipin na hindi lamang ang international at domestic flights kung hindi ang ating ekonomiya ang naaapektuhan ng strike (Let us keep in mind that the economy as a whole is adversely affected by the strike), the President said in an interview with dzRH. He was scheduled to meet with Lucio Tan (principal stockholder of the now privatized PAL; sg)and later have dinner at 7 last night with Labor Secretary Bienvenido Laguesma and labor leaders, among them officials of the PAL unions--Palea, Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines (Alpap) and Flight Attendants' and Stewards' Association of the Philippines (Fasap). The President reiterated his willingness to mediate the dispute. He said he was scheduled to meet with Palea last week, but the union representatives failed to make it to Malaca=F1ang. Members of the Philippine Airlines Employees Association (Palea) include reservation clerks, maintenance crew, caterers, cargo handlers and load controllers, who also service 19 of the 35 international carriers at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. PAL said a strike by its ground personnel could force Asia's oldest airline to close down after 57 years of operation. Palea asked the riding public for utmost understanding, saying that it never wanted to go on strike. Palea is defending not just its survival, we are defending our very lives, the union said in a statement. PAL, which reported a record P8.08 billion net loss in its fiscal year ending March 1998, said it was unable to make payments on about $2 billion of debt. This reckless and ill-advised action, like a fatal blow, may ultimately crush Philippine Airlines, the company said in a statement. By staging this illegal strike, Palea has put in jeopardy any proposed rehabilitation plan for the airline, and, with it, our last hope for survival as well, it added. The Securities and Exchange Commission has the authority to approve the rehabilitation plan. If it withholds approval because of the labor dispute, the airline would have no option but to close. SEC Chair Perfecto Yasay expressed concern about the strike's effect on the rehabilitation proposal. Doubts Doubts had been aired on whether the President would take up the cudgels for the workers, because of his close ties with tycoon Lucio Tan, PAL's majority owner. Tan was said to be major contributor to Mr. Estrada's campaign. On the other hand, it was also hoped that the President's relationship with Tan would enable him to convince the tycoon to reach a settlement with the strikers. In a single day and without any kind of warning, the Lucio Tan PAL management ordered the immediate termination of 5,000 employees literally shattering their lives and their families. Worse it was done in a manner that was patently unjust and inhuman, Palea said. The airline maintained its downsizing program was necessary for survival. PAL said it tried to find acceptable solutions to the problem to avert a strike by exhausting all possible means of finding an amicable settlement with the management and the labor department. Palea said it even met with Tan himself on Tuesday night in a last-ditch effort to avoid a strike. But to our dismay and to the detriment of the entire country which depends on PAL's continued reliability, the Lucio Tan group insists on their hardline position. Manolo Aquino, PAL executive vice president, said that during a meeting with the union PAL offered to suspend its downsizing program for one month but the union stuck to its demand that employees already retrenched should be re-hired. Aquino said that was impossible as PAL had cut back its operations by 80 percent since a pilots' 22-day strike last month and had no more positions for the retrenched workers. He said the strike was illegal because the government's labor department had assumed jurisdiction and had warned labor unions against striking. Labor Secretary Laguesma has vowed to push for continuing negotiations between PAL and Palea. Earlier, he issued an order assuming jurisdiction of the dispute in a bid to avert a strike. In the order, Laguesma has asked Palea not to go on strike and for PAL to stop firing employees. Laguesma clarified that he did not issue a return-to-work order to Palea on July 9. Palea cited Laguesma's alleged bias for PAL as indicated by the reported issuance of the order as one of the grounds for the strike. June pilots' strike In June, PAL was embroiled in a crippling pilots' strike that brought the company close to financial ruin. At the height of the strike, PAL laid off 5,000 of its nearly 14,000 workers. Palea then threatened to go on strike to demand the reinstatement of the terminated workers but the labor department assumed jurisdiction of the union's dispute with PAL on July 10 and prohibited any work stoppage. The labor department also ordered the airline to suspend any more layoffs. The union, however, said it would go ahead with the strike plans. The union filed a second strike notice with the labor department yesterday afternoon charging an illegal lockout, union busting and termination of union officers. Palea's strike caused some delays in several domestic flights but failed to paralyze the airlines' operations. As of presstime, regular flights to Tacloban, Cebu, Zamboanga, Cagayan de Oro, and Hong Kong proceeded with minor delays. PAL said that as of 7 p.m. it was able to operate all its domestic and international flights out of Manila, except for two US-bound flights scheduled to depart later last night. PAL said it dispatched 19 domestic flights and four flights to three Asian destinations. Rolly Estabillo, PAL spokesperson, said the support of an overwhelming number of PAL's air and ground employees of management made it possible for the airline to continue its operation. Estabillo said many rank and file employees crossed the picket line and manned their posts. The strike was staged even as hundreds of PAL employees petitioned Barrientos to reconsider union plans to go on strike, citing that the airline may collapse. Aside from asking Barrientos to reconsider the planned strike, the employees expressed support for PAL's rehabilitation. The employees also lamented the interference of non-PAL unions in the airlines' labor dispute. Officials at Naia's ground handling operations said only a few PAL employees showed up for work and other airlines that use PAL ground crew had prepared contingency plans. The non-strikers and ground crew from other airlines were expected to be capable of handling the services at the international airport during light traffic in the first half of the day but delays are expected to increase by the much busier afternoon period, according to airport sources. No support outside Metro The strike of the Manila-based Palea members did not seem to enjoy much support from their counterparts in the Visayas. PAL employees on Mactan Island, Cebu, and the cities of Iloilo, Tacloban and Bacolod opted to report for work yesterday. PAL was able to mount the scheduled flights in Tacloban, Cebu, and Iloilo yesterday although these were delayed by at least two hours. In Bacolod, one incoming flight and another outgoing flight were cancelled, not because of the strike, but because there were only few passengers. With the support of its ground personnel, PAL was able to mount, albeit delayed, three incoming and three outgoing flights in Mactan, Cebu; one incoming and outgoing in Bacolod and Tacloban; and two incoming and two outgoing in Iloilo. Mike Villanueva of Palea Bacolod said that except for the group's spokesman Emilio Garingalao, most of the 32 PAL employees reported for work. But, he added, he expected more Palea members in Bacolod to join the strike in a few days. Not a single PAL employee in Iloilo and Tacloban cities joined the strike. Simeon Canton Jr., PAL spokesperson in Cebu, said all 400 retained PAL employees in Mactan Cebu International Airport did not join the strike. But Clemencio Galindo, Palea board member in Cebu, belied Canton's claim, saying that at least 34 retained PAL workers joined the strike. Some 266 retrenched employees joined the mass action. Still, he added, he was disappointed that most of the PAL ground personnel in Cebu reported for work. The indefinite strike came days before Mr. Estrada's first State of the Nation Address and as the Philippines prepares to host an important diplomatic gathering. The 31st Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean) ministerial meeting opens this week in Manila.

By Virgil B. LopezFriday, April 1, 2011

IN SEPTEMBER 1998, Philippine Airlines (PAL) was hit by a double-whammy. Revenues fell after it reportedly bought too many planes that served supposedly unprofitable routes.The passenger slowdown resulting from the Asian crisis during that year didn't help.As a result, the company decided to close shop. Fortunately, two weeks later, on October 7 of the same year, the Philippines' flag carrier flew again. To sustain operations, the Lucio Tan-controlled airline sought court approval to temporarily suspend debt payments. Part of that rehabilitation plan included a proposal that asked workers to defer pay increases until the airline becomes financially stable again. More than 10 years later, the airline was able to post earnings after it managed to exit rehabilitation earlier than expected. But no new CBA has been negotiated after it expired in 2000. This has prompted the Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PAL) to file a series of strike notices, especially after the airline bared plans of outsourcing thousands of jobs in 2009. The question now is: Will the strike take off? Or will the government -- through the Department of Labor and Employment (Dole) -- assume jurisdiction, citing national interest like it did before and tell workers to go back to workWhat went before?August 27 2009Citing a $301.4-million loss at the end of its fiscal year last March 2009, PAL president and chief operating officer Jaime Bautista announced intentions of employing cost-cutting measures to stay afloat.Among these measures include a plan to reduce labor costs, which accounts for 18 percent of PAL's yearly expenses. From 2008-2009, total expenses reached $361 million. Bautista said the company seeks to put manpower costs at a single digit level, aimed at saving at least P1 billion.September 22, 2009Consultations regarding the outsourcing plan were held as the union asked the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, an attached agency of the Department of Labor and Employment (Dole), to facilitate talks. However, the 3,500-member Palea later sought the suspension of negotiations in October, citing lack of progress. January 28, 2010The Palea filed a notice of strike with the Dole to protest the looming job cuts.Palea cited PAL's "intended mass lay-off of union members and officers by April 2010, illegal outsourcing of regular positions, direct negotiations with union members, unresolved issues during preventive mediation, and non-compliance of pay scale review during settlement of the wage distortion."April 18, 2010PAL formally announced its plan to outsource 2,600 "non-core" jobs and shutter three departments -- airport services, in-flight catering, and reservations. PAL president Jaime Bautista said higher fuel prices, the downgrade of the Philippines' aviation safety rating to Category 2 by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the European blacklist of all Philippine carriers necessitated the outsourcing program.The airline said around P2 billion will be spent to cover the early retirement packages of would-be retrenched employees.April 27, 2010The Dole has assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute, which effectively halted the union's plan to go on strike. Acting Labor Secretary Romeo Lagman also promised to review and come up with a decision on the validity of the outsourcing plan as soon as possible. June 15, 2010Acting Labor Secretary Romeo Lagman ruled in favor of the airline's spinoff program, calling it as a "valid exercise of management prerogative."June 28, 2010Palea filed an appeal, urging the Labor department to reconsider its position. It also assailed Lagman's decision as a "midnight" order, since the term of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo ended just a month ago. July 31, 2010PAL was forced to cancel 11 flights after 25 pilots resigned. The airline warned that charges could be filed over what it called employment contract breaches. "PAL will soon be filing appropriate charges against those pilots who chose not to report for work immediately after submitting resignation letters. Most of the pilots still owe PAL the cost of their aviation school training, which run into millions of pesos per pilot," PAL president Jaime Bautista said. Out of the 25 resigned pilots, two have already served the five-year minimum service while the rest have not yet finished the contract, Bautista added. See full story. August 1, 2010President Benigno Aquino III ordered government officials led by Transportation Secretary Jose "Ping" de Jesus to talk with representatives from PAL and Palea to discuss the mass resignation of pilots. "PAL [does] have obligations when [it] secured the franchise to operate this public conveyance; the pilots also have an obligation," he said in a press briefing.Aquino warned that the flight cancellations due to lack of pilots manning the Airbus 319 and 320 planes will be dealt severely by the tourism industry. See full story. August 7, 2010PAL temporarily suspended its Cebu-Davao flights and reduced operations to other routes in time for the "lean season," which generally last from August to November. "Capacity rationalization is routinely done in anticipation of lower passenger volume, especially tourists, during the rainy months from August to November. It also coincides with the reduced number of PAL pilots who left for jobs abroad," PAL president Jaime Bautista said.See full story. October 8, 2010Stalled for the past 12 years, the union presented to PAL management its proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement, which covers a five-year period (2008-2013). "We believe that the CBA should retroact to 2008 since the CBA moratorium was only for 10 years not 12," Palea president Gerry Rivera said, referring to the 10-year suspension of its pay agreement with the ailing PAL in 1998. The PAL-Palea CBA was put on moratorium for 10 years in the wake of the bitter 1998 labor dispute that saw a pilots' and ground crew strike, and the closure of the airline. The moratorium has been extended for two more years under the term of previous union leaderships.Besides including an upgraded pay scale, the proposal also revises the provision of the old CBA barring contracting out of existing positions, jobs, divisions and departments presently occupied by present or future regular employees. See full story. October 29, 2010The four-month old Aquino administration through Labor Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz affirmed the June 15 decision of then acting labor secretary Romeo Lagman allowing PAL to outsource its call center, catering, and ground service operations. Baldoz merely referred PAL's move as a "valid exercise of management prerogative," as she increased the early retirement package from P2 billion to P2.5 billion. The severance package also gives non-monetary benefits such as medical insurance and free plane tickets, as well as guaranteed one-year employment from the three service providers contracted out by PAL. As expected, Palea criticized the decision as it mulled elevating the case before the Court of Appeals. But this failed to materialize after President Benigno Aquino III sought for a "negotiated settlement" to resolve the labor dispute.See full story. November 5, 2010Palea filed its second notice of strike before the labor department to protest the outsourcing of PAL's airport services, in-flight catering and call center reservations.The strike notice was based on two grounds, namely: unfair labor practices such as direct negotiation with union members and mass termination of its officers amounting to union busting. However, PAL challenged the strike notice in November 12, citing the complaints have been rehashed. See full story. December 7, 2010Around 86 percent of Palea's 3,500 members have expressed interest in joining the planned work stoppage to protest the PAL's alleged unfair labor practices. A strike vote was held last December 6 in all PAL offices and outlying stations from Laoag to Zamboanga.The labor department said the union has to wait seven more days before undertaking the actual strike. See full story. December 15, 2010President Benigno Aquino III stepped into the labor row as he asked for a review of PAL's outsourcing plan, the first time a President assumed jurisdiction over a labor dispute. Palea decided to hold off an actual strike while PAL was disallowed from implementing the outsourcing program pending a Palace review. Both parties are also ordered to attend conciliation meetings initiated by Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. See full story. March 7, 2011Unionized workers filed their third notice of strike at the Dole in over a year, after accusing PAL of refusing to enter into a new collective bargaining agreement.In October 2010, the union presented its CBA proposal to PAL president Jaime Bautista but the management said in a letter last February 16 that talks will only take place once the controversial spinoff program is resolved by Malacaang.He said CBA negotiations about benefits and working conditions should only cover those who would be left behind, in case the spinoff is sustained. Those for early retirement, on the other hand, would be covered by applicable provisions of the spinoff, according to Bautista. See full story. March 23, 2011Palea held a strike vote among its members regarding PAL's reluctance to hold collective bargaining negotiations even before the release of Malacaang's review of the outsourcing plan. See full story. March 25, 2011The Office of the President affirmed the October 29, 2010 decision of Labor Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz, with a modification: increasing the additional gratuity to the employees who will be dismissed from P50,000 to P100,000. Other benefits such as separation pay equivalent to 1.25 month's salary for every year of service, free plane tickets, automatic one-year stay in the third-party service provider, and medical insurance were also guaranteed. In support of this position, the Palace cited jurisprudence referring to management prerogatives to close or cease its operations."The severance of employment of rank-and-file employees to be affected by the outsourcing of services was valid, and that PAL could not be held liable for unfair labor practice for pursuing a legitimate exercise of management prerogative," the Malacaang statement said. PAL first leaked the decision to the media while the union received its copy only last March 28. Prior to this development, both sides met in Malacaang last February 11 but talks ended in a deadlock. On the same day, Palea president Gerry Rivera said 95 percent favored the strike plan after the poll last March 23. Around 70 percent of the 3,500-member union also turned out for the strike vote and a mere four percent opposed the measure. See full story. March 27, 2011Palea accused President Benigno Aquino III of conniving with PAL's billionaire owner Lucio Tan in the implementation of the mass layoff program. It also set week-long activities in protest of the Palace's decision and as a run up to the soon-to-be conducted strike.The union said it is still studying possible legal remedies including a direct appeal to the Office of the President. See full story. March 28, 2011PAL presented its counterpart proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement. Under PAL's proposal, employees will receive pay increases of P750 for the first year, P1,500 for the second year, and another P1,500 for the third year."This is what management believes the company can afford at this time, given the string of massive losses suffered by PAL since 2008," said Jose Uybarreta, PAL vice president for human resources.However, the offer will only cover rank-and-file employees within the bargaining unit to be left behind after the retrenchment of 2,600 workers. For his part, Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning Secretary Ricky Carandang encouraged the union to file an appeal before the Office of the President. See full story.April 1, 2011The seven-day call off period following the successful strike vote ends. Palea can hold an actual strike from April 2 onwards unless the Labor department intervenes anew in the labor dispute.Under the Labor Code, the secretary of labor has the power to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute or issue a return-to-work order in case of an actual work stoppage. PAL had said that contingency measures are already in place to address the looming strike, which include the tapping of administrative personnel to do certain functions and transferring passengers to sister airline Airphil Express and 134 interline partners. The company said a strike, if declared illegal by proper authorities, could lead to the forfeiture of striking workers' benefits, including those ordered by the Office of the President on March 25. (Sunnex)9 BusinessNo.

Police officers took a sworn oath to protect lives and property.

Imagine what would happen in you neighborhood, if the police went on strike. the governor would have to call up the national guard, if there any soldiers left in the United States to call.

And, the people would never forget what happened, if police officers were to strike. the next time the police wanted a raise or new equipment, do you think the public would support them. no way.

There are other means of gaining someone's attention for better pay, benefits, etc.

Sick in, blue flu, slowdowns are just a few available and are very effective.

When the money ceases to flow into the local or state government, politicians take notice and react.

Police striking? No, it goes against the very oath officers sworn to uphold.

Read more: Should the Police be allowed to Strike? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/525135#ixzz2seCTIuuGLegality[edit]Some Crime Acts make it illegal for anyone to interfere with police in the course of their duty. Thus anyone calling on police to stop work or support a fellow worker would be guilty of a criminal offence. Police officers do not have the employment rights enjoyed by other workers because of the nature of the job they do on behalf of the public.In the United Kingdom Police officers are currently banned from taking strike action under the Police Act 1996. The police have been banned from striking since 1919, when the Police Act was first established. The Police Federation of England and Wales is to ballot rank-and-file officers on moves to overturn the law.[1]Causes[edit]One cause for police strikes has been increases in the difficulty of policing itself. The wave of American police strikes in the late 1960s and 1970s accompanied other forms of social unrestwhich themselves put pressure on police forces. Also, police wages, which had historically been exceptional, declined relative to the wages of other workers.[24] Police strikes have also occurred in situations where national control was in question and the police's alignment differed from the current rulers (i.e. in occupied France and India).Employees in the public (civil) service, unlike those in the private sector, do not have the right to strike, although guaranteed the right to self-organization, to petition Congress for the betterment of employment terms and conditions and to negotiate with appropriate government agencies for the improvement of such working conditions as are not fixed by law

digests article III sections 5-8, constitutional law Garces vs. Estenso

Facts: The case is about the constitutionality of four resolutions of the barangay council of Valencia, Ormoc City, regarding the acquisition of the wooden image of San Vicente Ferrer to be used in the celebration of his annual feast day. That issue was spawned by the controversy as to whether the parish priest or a layman should have the custody of the image. On March 23, 1976, the said barangay council adopted Resolution No. 5, "reviving the traditional socio-religious celebration" every fifth day of April "of the feast day of Seor San Vicente Ferrer, the patron saint of Valencia".

Issue: Is the holding of fiesta and having a patron saint for the barrio, valid and constitutional?

Held: Yes. The wooden image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta honoring the patron saint, San Vicente Ferrer, and not for the purpose of favoring any religion nor interfering with religious matters or the religious beliefs of the barrio residents. One of the highlights of the fiesta was the mass. Consequently, the image of the patron saint had to be placed in the church when the mass was celebrated.

If there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal in holding a fiesta and having a patron saint for the barrio, then any activity intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint (such as the acquisition and display of his image) cannot be branded as illegal. As noted in the first resolution, the barrio fiesta is a socio-religious affair. Its celebration is an ingrained tradition in rural communities. The fiesta relieves the monotony and drudgery of the lives of the masses.

Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance

Facts: These are motions seeking reconsideration of our decision dismissing the petitions filed in these cases for the declaration of unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 7716, otherwise known as the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law. Now it is contended by the PPI that by removing the exemption of the press from the VAT while maintaining those granted to others, the law discriminates against the press. At any rate, it is averred, "even nondiscriminatory taxation of constitutionally guaranteed freedom is unconstitutional."

Issue: Does sales tax on bible sales violative of religious freedom?

Held: No. The Court was speaking in that case of a license tax, which, unlike an ordinary tax, is mainly for regulation. Its imposition on the press is unconstitutional because it lays a prior restraint on the exercise of its right. Hence, although its application to others, such those selling goods, is valid, its application to the press or to religious groups, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, in connection with the latter's sale of religious books and pamphlets, is unconstitutional. As the U.S. Supreme Court put it, "it is one thing to impose a tax on income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax on him for delivering a sermon."

The VAT is, however, different. It is not a license tax. It is not a tax on the exercise of a privilege, much less a constitutional right. It is imposed on the sale, barter, lease or exchange of goods or properties or the sale or exchange of services and the lease of properties purely for revenue purposes. To subject the press to its payment is not to burden the exercise of its right any more than to make the press pay income tax or subject it to general regulation is not to violate its freedom under the Constitution

Manosca vs. CA

Facts: Petitioners inherited a piece of land when the parcel was ascertained by the NHI to have been the birth site of Felix Y. Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo, it passed Resolution No. 1, declaring the land to be a national historical landmark. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on the main thesis that the intended expropriation was not for a public purpose and, incidentally, that the act would constitute an application of public funds, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of Iglesia ni Cristo, a religious entity, contrary to the provision of Section 29(2), Article VI, of the 1987 Constitution.

Issue: The expropriation of the land whereat Manalo was born, valid and constitutional?

Held: Yes. The taking to be valid must be for public use. There was a time when it was felt that a literal meaning should be attached to such a requirement. Whatever project is undertaken must be for the public to enjoy, as in the case of streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not allowable. It is not so any more. As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of eminent domain comes into play. As just noted, the constitution in at least two cases, to remove any doubt, determines what is public use. One is the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots for resale at cost to individuals. The other is the transfer, through the exercise of this power, of utilities and other private enterprise to the government. It is accurate to state then that at present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use.

Ebralinag vs. DepEd

Facts: All the petitioners in the original case were minor school children, and members of the sect, Jehovah's Witnesses (assisted by their parents) who were expelled from their classes by various public school authorities in Cebu for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by Republic Act No. 1265 of July 11, 1955 and by Department Order No. 8, dated July 21, 1955 issued by the Department of Education. Aimed primarily at private educational institutions which did not observe the flag ceremony exercises, Republic Act No. 1265 penalizes all educational institutions for failure or refusal to observe the flag ceremony with public censure on first offense and cancellation of the recognition or permit on second offense.

Issue: Does refusal to take part in the flag ceremony, on account of religious belief, so offensive as to prompt legitimate state intervention?

Held: No. While conceding to the idea adverted to by the Solicitor General that certain methods of religious expression may be prohibited to serve legitimate societal purposes, refusal to participate in the flag ceremony hardly constitutes a form of religious expression so offensive and noxious as to prompt legitimate State intervention. It bears repeating that their absence from the ceremony hardly constitutes a danger so grave and imminent as to warrant the state's intervention. In the case of a regulation which appears to abridge a right to which the fundamental law accords high significance it is the regulation, not the act (or refusal to act), which is the exception and which requires the court's strictest scrutiny. In the case at bench, the government has not shown that refusal to do the acts of conformity exacted by the assailed orders, which respondents point out attained legislative cachet in the Administrative Code of 1987, would pose a clear and present danger of a danger so serious and imminent, that it would prompt legitimate State intervention.

Estrada vs. Escritor?

Facts: Alejandro Estrada wrote to Judge Caoibes, Jr., requesting for an investigation of rumors that respondent Soledad Escritor, court interpreter in said court, is living with a man not her husband. They allegedly have a child of eighteen to twenty years old. He filed the charge against Escritor as he believes that she is committing an immoral act that tarnishes the image of the court, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as it might appear that the court condones her act.

Issue: What is the doctrine of benevolent neutrality? Is respondent entitled thereto? Is the doctrine of benevolent neutrality consistent with the free exercise clause?

Held: Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and interests but at the same time strives to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible constitutional limits. Thus, although the morality contemplated by laws is secular, benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interests. It still remains to be seen if respondent is entitled to such doctrine as the state has not been afforded the chance has demonstrate the compelling state interest of prohibiting the act of respondent, thus the case is remanded to the RTC.

Benevolent neutrality is inconsistent with the Free Exercise Clause as far as it prohibits such exercise given a compelling state interest. It is the respondents stance that her conjugal arrangement is not immoral and punishable as it comes within the scope of free exercise protection. Should the Court prohibit and punish her conduct where it is protected by the Free Exercise Clause, the Courts action would be an unconstitutional encroachment of her right to religious freedom. We cannot therefore simply take a passing look at respondents claim of religious freedom, but must instead apply the compelling state interest test. The government must be heard on the issue as it has not been given an opportunity to discharge its burden of demonstrating the states compelling interest which can override respondents religious belief and practice.

Pamil vs. Teleron?

Facts: The novel question in this case concerns the eligibility of an ecclesiastic to an elective municipal position. Private respondent, Father Margarito R. Gonzaga, was, in 1971, elected to the position of municipal mayor of Alburquerque, Bohol. Therefore, he was duly proclaimed. A suit was then filed by petitioner, himself an aspirant for the office, for his disqualification based on this Administrative Code provision: "In no case shall there be elected or appointed to a municipal office ecclesiastics, soldiers in active service, persons receiving salaries or compensation from provincial or national funds, or contractors for public works of the municipality."

Issue: Is the prohibition imposed on ecclesiastics from holding appointive or elective municipal offices a religious test?

Held: No. The vote is thus indecisive. While five members of the Court constitute a minority, the vote of the remaining seven does not suffice to render the challenged provision ineffective. Section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code, as far as ecclesiastics are concerned, must be accorded respect. The presumption of validity calls for its application. Under the circumstances, certiorari lies. That is the conclusion arrived at by the writer of this opinion, joined by Justice Concepcion Jr., Santos, Fernandez, and Guerrero. They have no choice then but to vote for the reversal of the lower court decision and declare ineligible respondent Father Margarito R. Gonzaga for the office of municipal mayor. With the aforesaid five other members, led by the Chief Justice, entertaining no doubt as to his lack of eligibility, this petition for certiorari must be granted.

It would be an unjustified departure from a settled principle of the applicable construction of the provision on what laws remain operative after 1935 if the plea of petitioner in this case were to be heeded. The challenged Administrative Code provision, certainly insofar as it declares ineligible ecclesiastics to any elective or appointive office, is, on its face, inconsistent with the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. To so exclude them is to impose a religious test.

Here being an ecclesiastic and therefore professing a religious faith suffices to disqualify for a public office. There is thus an incompatibility between the Administrative Code provision relied upon by petitioner and an express constitutional mandate. It is not a valid argument against this conclusion to assert that under the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916, there was such a prohibition against a religious test, and yet such a ban on holding a municipal position had not been nullified. It suffices to answer that no question was raised as to its validity.

Taruc vs. Bishop Dela Cruz

Facts: Petitioners were lay members of the Philippine Independent Church (PIC). On June 28, 1993, Bishop de la Cruz declared petitioners expelled/excommunicated from the Philippine Independent Church. Because of the order of expulsion/excommunication, petitioners filed a complaint for damages with preliminary injunction against Bishop de la Cruz before the Regional Trial Court.They contended that their expulsion was illegal because it was done without trial thus violating their right to due process of law.

Issue: What is the role of the State, through the Courts, on matters of religious intramurals?

Held: The expulsion/excommunication of members of a religious institution/organization is a matter best left to the discretion of the officials, and the laws and canons, of said institution/organization. It is not for the courts to exercise control over church authorities in the performance of their discretionary and official functions. Rather, it is for the members of religious institutions/organizations to conform to just church regulations.

Civil Courts will not interfere in the internal affairs of a religious organization except for the protection of civil or property rights. Those rights may be the subject of litigation in a civil court, and the courts have jurisdiction to determine controverted claims to the title, use, or possession of church property.

Obviously, there was no violation of a civil right in the present case.

Soriano vs. La Guardia

Facts: On August 10, 2004, at around 10:00 p.m., petitioner, as host of the program Ang Dating Daan, aired on UNTV 37, made obscene remarks against INC. Two days after, before the MTRCB, separate but almost identical affidavit-complaints were lodged by Jessie L. Galapon and seven other private respondents, all members of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), against petitioner in connection with the above broadcast. Respondent Michael M. Sandoval, who felt directly alluded to in petitioners remark, was then a minister of INC and a regular host of the TV program Ang Tamang Daan.

Issue: Are Sorianos statements during the televised Ang Dating Daan part of the religious discourse and within the protection of Section 5, Art.III?

Held: No. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, therefore, and considering the adverse effect of petitioners utterances on the viewers fundamental rights as well as petitioners clear violation of his duty as a public trustee, the MTRCB properly suspended him from appearing in Ang Dating Daan for three months.

Furthermore, it cannot be properly asserted that petitioners suspension was an undue curtailment of his right to free speech either as a prior restraint or as a subsequent punishment. Aside from the reasons given above (re the paramountcy of viewers rights, the public trusteeship character of a broadcasters role and the power of the State to regulate broadcast media), a requirement that indecent language be avoided has its primary effect on the form, rather than the content, of serious communication. There are few, if any, thoughts that cannot be expressed by the use of less offensive language.

Section 6

Yap vs. CA

Facts: The right against excessive bail, and the liberty of abode and travel, are being invoked to set aside two resolutions of the Court of Appeals which fixed bail at P5,500,000.00 and imposed conditions on change of residence and travel abroad. For misappropriating amounts equivalent to P5,500,000.00, petitioner was convicted of estafa and was sentenced to four years and two months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor as maximum, in addition to one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00 but in no case shall it exceed twenty (20) years. He filed a notice of appeal, and moved to be allowed provisional liberty under the cash bond he had filed earlier in the proceedings.

Issue: Was the condition imposed by the CA on accuseds bail bond violative the liberty of abode and right to travel?

Held: Imposing bail in an excessive amount could render meaningless the right to bail. Under the circumstances of this case, we find that appropriate conditions have been imposed in the bail bond to ensure against the risk of flight, particularly, the combination of the hold-departure order and the requirement that petitioner inform the court of any change of residence and of his whereabouts. Although an increase in the amount of bail while the case is on appeal may be meritorious, we find that the setting of the amount at P5,500,000.00 is unreasonable, excessive, and constitutes an effective denial of petitioners right to bail.

Cojuangco vs. Sandiganbayan

Facts: This petition for prohibition seeks to dismiss Criminal Case entitled People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., et al., now pending before respondent Sandiganbayan and to prohibit said court from further proceeding with the case. Petitioner invokes his constitutional right to due process, a speedy trial, and a speedy determination of his cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies. Further, he prays for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction enjoining respondent Sandiganbayan from further enforcing and/or implementing its order dated February 20, 1995 which bans petitioner from leaving the country except upon prior approval by said court.

Issue: When a person is criminally charged, is his right to travel absolutely curtailed?

Held: No.The travel ban should be lifted, considering all the circumstances now prevailing. The rule laid down by this Court is that a person facing a criminal indictment and provisionally released on bail does not have an unrestricted right to travel, the reason being that a persons right to travel is subject to the usual constraints imposed by the very necessity of safeguarding the system of justice. But, significantly, the Office of the Solicitor General in its Manifestation dated November 20, 1998 indicated that it is not interposing any objection to petitioners prayer that he be allowed to travel abroad based on the following considerations: (1) that it is well within the power of this Court to suspend its own rules, inc