Interphil Employees v.

Interphil
Topic: Jurisdiction of DOLE, Illegal Strike (Work Slowdown), Evidence in labor cases Relevant Provisions: (just the title of the provision) Art 236(g), Labor Code Joint jurisdiction between LAs and Sec. of Labor

G. R. No. 142824 Dec. 19, 2001 Kapunan J. Petitioners: Interphil Employees Union (Union) Respondents: Interphl Laboratories, Inc. Summary: (Note: this is what I think the main doctrine is. Read the digest for the other issues). The Interphil Union wanted the company to renegotiate, or at least guarantee an extension of the CBA before it expired. When the company wanted to defer negotiation to the proper period, the employees conducted overtime boycott and work slowdown. The company filed with the Labor Arbiter to declare the strike illegal. Eventually, another case was born in front of the Sec. Of Labor. The Sec of Labor directed the LA to hear the case and report to the Secretary. Both the LA and the Sec. ruled against the union. The union said that the Sec had no jurisdiction to rule on the case, since it was in front of the LA. The SC held that because of art. 236(g), the Sec has jurisdiction over these acts which were intertwined with the labor dispute in front of him. FACTS: The union and Interphil have a CBA in place. Its to be effeective from Aug 1, 1990, to July 31, 1993. Sometime in Feb. 1993, Nestor Ocampo (union president) and Hernando Clemente (union director) approached Salazar (VP for HR), asking him about the CBA. o They wanted to know what the companys stand was regarding the duration of the CBA o Salazar said it would better be discussed during the formal negotiations. o They approached him again in March, and they got the same reply. They approached him again in April, asking for a meeting to discuss the CBA Salazar acceded, and he was asked if he would be amenable to making the new CBA effective for 2 years, starting Aug 1, 1993. o Salazar said, again, that it was premature to discuss this, and the company couldnt make a decision right then and there. The very next day (April 16, 1993), all the rank and file employees suddenly refused to follow the normal two-shift work schedule (6am-6pm, and 6pm-6am). At 2pm (first shift) and at 2am (2 nd shift), the employees simply left the workplace without sealing the containers or securing the materials they were working with. Salazar, alarmed, asked the employees Whats going on??? (not his exact words, siguro nagmura pa yun) o They merely said ask the union officers. Salazar immediately called for a meeting with the officers, and they said that the employees would only return to the normal work schedule if the company would agree to their demands regarding the effectivity and duration of the CBA. o Salazar, again, said that this would be better discussed during the formal negotiations. The union was not satisfied they continued the overtime boycott (notice, they would leave after exactly 8 hours of work) o They also conducted a work slowdown campaign when they were working production was thus substiantially delayed. The union submitted their CBA proposal, and the company submitted their counterproposal. On September 3, 1993, the company filed with the NLRC a petition to declare the boycot and slowdown illegal they said that it amounted to illegal strike. o This was assigned to Labor Arbiter Caday. On Oct. 22, 1993, the company filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) a request for preventive mediation however, the parties were unable to arrive at an agreement

Thus, the company filed, on Nov. 15, with the Secretary of Labor and Employment, a petition for assumption of jurisdiction. On Jan. 24, 1994, the union filed with the NCMB a Notice of Strike, citing unfair labor practice. They staged a strike on Feb. 12. (kapal). On Feb 14, the Secretary of Labor, Nieves Confesor, issued an assumption order over the labor dispute. o On March 2, Confesor ordered the company to accept all the striking workers, and the union to stop striking and return to work. o This order said that all pending cases which were direct offshoots of the labor dispute are subsumed herewith. Meanwhile, the case before LA Caday continued. o The union filed for consolidation of the case with the labor dispute pending before the Secretary. o Caday held the proceedings in abeyance o However, on June 6, Acting Secretary Brillanted directed Caday and another arbiter to proceed with the case. On Sept 5, Caday submitted the recommendation to Sec. of Labor, Quisumbing, who approved and adopted the report into his order dated August 13, 1997 (I wonder whats been going on the past 4 years. Strike parin ba sila?) o The overtime boycott and work slowdown were declared an illegal strike o Several union officers were fired o The union was charged with unfair labor practice for violating the CBA, which prohibited the union or any employee from striking or engaging in slowdown or interruption of work. They were ordered to cease and desist. Union moved for reconsideration denied. They moved up to the CA dismissed. o

Hence, this petition. ISSUES: 1. Did the CA err in disregarding the parol evidence rule? 2. Did the CA err in not declaring the companys act of extending substantial separation package to the involved officers as tantamount to condonation if there was any misdeed committed? 3. Did the CA err in holding that the Sec. of Labor has jurisdiction over a case (petition to declare a strike illegal), which was pending before the labor arbiter?

HELD: Petition DENIED. Decision of lower court AFFIRMED. RATIO:

On the matter of jurisdiction o It is undisputed that the petition to declare the strike illegal was filed before LA Caday long before o
the Sec. of Labor and Employment (SOLE katamad itype) issued the assumption order. However, issues of overtime boycott and work slowdown amounting to illegal strike before Caday are intertwined with the labor dispute before the SOLE.

In fact, on March 16, 1994, the Union even asked Caday to suspend proceedings and consolidate the same with the SOLE.

o o

When Brillantes ordered Caday to continue the case, both parties acceded, knowing that there was a directive for him to submit his recommendation to the SOLE. The subsequent participation of the union in the hearing was an affirmation of the jurisdiction of the SOLE. The SC also cited a case International Pharmaceutical v. Sec. Of Labor and Associated Labor Union

Art. 263 (g) of the Labor Code: SOLE has authority to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing/likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to national interest Necessarily, this extends to all questions arising therefrom, including cases over which the LA has jurisdiction. Art. 217 of the Labor Code has exceptions (except as otherwise provided under this code) Art. 263(g) is such an exception.

The SOLE and the Las share jurisdiction, sometimes.

Thus, the assailed orders are within the province of the SOLE.

On the matter of evidence o The union says that the lower courts disregarded the parol evidence rule, when they upheld the o
o allegation of the company that the schedule was the two-shift sked mentioned above. The CBA provides that the normal working hours were from 730am 4pm (normal 8 hour shift) Reliance on this rule is misplaced labor cases before the NLRC od LA arent strictly bound by the rules of evidence. Theyre not applied in a very rigid or technical sense. So the LA could in fact accept and consider other evidence than the CBA. In any case, the CBA said that the work hours could change at the companys discretion. Also, the employees were aware, and in fact complied with the 12-hour shifts. Their own witnesses show this.

o o o

On the illegal strike o Its clear that the actions taken by the union amounted to illegal strike. o (The SC here just reiterated the facts as stated above). o They also cited a testimony of a union member Essentially, he said that the union officers called for a stop to the overtime activities. When he disregarded it and actually went to work, he was branded a traitor by the union officers and was shouted at. o The union also claimed that they had no hand in the work slowdown there was no change in performance/efficiency for the year 1993 This was rebuffed by their own witness (she could not answer how she prepared the productivity reports, because she was on union leave. She had no knowledge of some of the reports) Even then, the comparison is of no moment undeniably, the boycott and work slowdown resulted in financial loss and damage to its reputation. o The SC classified the acts by the union as a strike on installment basis. Slowdown is an inherently illegal activity wherein the workers purposefully remain at their positions and accept wages, but at the same time, select what parts of their allotted task they want to perform, and refuse to do other work. On the substantial separation package o This is not a form of condonation. o When the separation payments were given, the officers were still employees o The company was just doing its legal obligation o In fact, they could have withheld these union should in fact be grateful to the company.