Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
DOCTRINES RUBIO J.
STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS
ABARIA VS. NLRC
-
1 | Page
CASE
YSS
EMPLOYEES
UNION
LABORATORIES INC
-
2012
VS.
YSS
Company vs union
Company retrenched 11 employees
Sec of labor assumed jurisdiction
What
is
the
effect
of
assumption?
Can the ER choose who is to be
reinstated?
LABOR RELATIONS
DOCTRINES RUBIO J.
CASE
2012
2 | Page
LABOR RELATIONS
DOCTRINES RUBIO J.
widespread terrorism of non-strikers [for
example, prohibited acts under Art. 264(e)
of the Labor Code]; or
(5) [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]; or
(6) [when it] is contrary to an existing
agreement, such as a no-strike clause or
conclusive arbitration clause.18
Why is the strike illegal?
1. Committed with illegal acts (shaving
their heads)
2. No strike, no lockout policy on the
existing CBA
3. Shaving their heads was a violation
to their duty to bargain collectively
4. Violation of 30 day cooling off and 7
day strike ban
5. Illegal acts such as forming human
barricades and blocing the driveways
Consequences
Regarding the Union officers and members'
liabilities for their participation in the illegal
picket and strike, Art. 264(a), paragraph 3 of
the Labor Code provides that "[a]ny union
officer who knowingly participates in
an illegal strike and any worker or
union
officer
who
knowingly
participates in the commission of
illegal acts during a strike may be
declared to have lost his employment
status x x x." The law makes a distinction
between union officers and mere union
members. Union officers may be validly
terminated from employment for their
participation in an illegal strike, while union
members have to participate in and commit
illegal acts for them to lose their
employment status. Thus, it is necessary for
the company to adduce proof of the
participation of the striking employees in the
commission of illegal acts during the strikes.
JACKBILT INDUSTRIES INC VS. JACKBILT
EMPLOYEES WORKERS UNION-NAFLUKMU
3 | Page
CASE
-
2012
construction
crisis
1997,
ER
temporary shutdown
EEs protested, striked, NLRC TRO,
union disregarded, strike is definitely
illegal.
ER dimissed EEs because of the
illegal strike, LA held ER liable for
illegal dismissal because it did not
file a petition to declare the strike
illegal.
LABOR RELATIONS
DOCTRINES RUBIO J.
because of failure to return back to
work? NO
There is no necessity to conduct a
proceeding to determine the participants in
the illegal strike or those who refused to
heed the return to work order because the
ambiguity can be cured by reference to the
body of the decision and the pleadings
filed.1avvphi1
A review of the records reveals that in NCMB
NCR NS 12-514-97, the DOLE Secretary
declared the ALPAP officers and members to
have lost their employment status based on
either of two grounds, viz: their participation
in the illegal strike on June 5, 1998 or their
defiance of the return-to-work order of the
DOLE Secretary. The records of the case
unveil the names of each of these returning
pilots. The logbook with the heading "Return
To Work Compliance/ Returnees" bears their
individual
signature
signifying
their
conformity that they were among those
workers who returned to work only on June
26, 1998 or after the deadline imposed by
DOLE. From this crucial and vital piece of
evidence, it is apparent that each of these
pilots is bound by the judgment. Besides,
the complaint for illegal lockout was filed on
behalf of all these returnees. Thus, a finding
that there was no illegal lockout would be
enforceable against them. In fine, only those
returning pilots, irrespective of whether they
comprise the entire membership of ALPAP,
are bound by the June 1, 1999 DOLE
Resolution.
True, the dispositive portion of the DOLE
Resolution does not specifically enumerate
the
names
of
those
who
actually
participated in the strike but only mentions
that those strikers who failed to heed the
return-to-work order are deemed to have
lost their employment. This omission,
however, cannot prevent an effective
execution of the decision. As was held in
Reinsurance Company of the Orient, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, any ambiguity may be
clarified by reference primarily to the body
of the decision or supplementary to the
pleadings previously filed in the case. In any
case, especially when there is an ambiguity,
"a judgment shall be read in connection with
the
entire
record
and
construed
accordingly."
OLISA ET AL VS. ESCARIO
4 | Page
CASE
-
2012
LABOR RELATIONS
DOCTRINES RUBIO J.
considering that a strike was not
renunciation of the employment relation.
CASE
a
5 | Page
2012