INSULAR LIFE EAU V.

INSULAR LIFE
GR. NO. L-25291, January 30 1971
FACTS:
The union jointly submitted proposals to the companies for a modified renewal of
their respective collective bargaining contracts. Thereafter, negotiations were
conducted on the unions proposal but there were snagged by a deadlock on the
issue of union shop, as a result, a notice of strike for deadlock on collective
bargaining was filed. During the strike, the company sent individually to the strikers
in which contains several benefits such as free coffee, occasional movies and
others, to whoever wish to continue to work. However, a few unionist were
convinced to desist and the others continued the strike. Thereafter, some
management men tried to penetrate the picket lines in front of the Insular Life
Building. Due to resistance by some picketers, picketers and strike-breakers were
injured. Then, another letter was sent to each strikers which threatens them that if
they wont report for work on June 2, 1958, the company will replace them.
However, prior to their readmittance to the company, three conditions must be met:
1) the employee must be interested in continuing his work with the group
companies; 2) there must be no criminal charges against him and; 3) he must report
for work on June 2, 1958, otherwise the employees would be replace.
Strikers reported for work on June 2, 1958, 63 members were not readmitted
for they had pending criminal charges. Upon clearance, 34 were still not readmiited
on the ground that they committed acts inimical to the companies and received a
letter containing the terminations of their employment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of unfair labor practice.
HELD:
YES.
The act of the employer in notifying the strikers individually that their jobs is
open for them should they want to come in has been held as unfair labor practice
for it interferes the right of the employees of collective bargaining through dealing
with them individually instead of negotiating with their collective bargaining
representative. Thus, when the respondent offered reinstatement and attempted to
bribe the strikers with comfortable cots, free coffee and occasional movies,
overtime pay for work performed in excess of eight hours and arrangements for
their families so they would abandon the strike and return to work, they were guilty
of strike-breaking and/or union busting and consequently of unfair labor practice.