Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union vs.

NLRC
Facts: The Petition stems from three cases originally instituted before Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. 1 of the National Labor Relations
Commission in Dagupan City. The first case, NLRC Case No. 01-03-7-0049-89, was commenced by the herein petitioner, Ismael Tamayo, Sr.,
against Rural Bank of Alaminos, Inc. (RBAI) for illegal dismissal and damages. The second case, docketed as NLRC Case No.01-04-7-0059-89,
was filed by the herein private respondent, Rural Bank of Alaminos, Inc., against the Rural Bank of Alaminos Employees Union for unfair labor
practice, declaration of illegality of strike and damages. While the third case, docketed as NLRC Case No. 01-06-0097-89, was filed by the
Employees Union against the Bank, charging the latter with unfair labor practice and damages.
Issue: WON filing a petition for cancellation of the Unions registration is ULP?
Held: A lock-out means the temporary refusal of an employer to furnish work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute . As correctly found by the
NLRC, in the case under consideration evidence of illegal lock-out is wanting such that there can be no conclusive determination by the NLRC as to
the charge. Petitioners failed to present sufficient proof to support the allegation of illegal lock-out. No evidence was adduced by the Union to show
that the Bank really refused them employment during the pendency of the strike. As to the allegation that the Bank was interfering with and
restraining the employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, suffice it to state that filing a petition for cancellation of the Unions
registration is not per se an act of unfair labor practice. It must be shown by substantial evidence that the filing of the petition for cancellation of
union registration by the employer was aimed to oppress the Union.

Biflex Phils. v. Fiflex Industrial & Manufacturing Corp.

Facts: Petitioners were officers of Biflex (Phils.) Inc. Labor Union and of Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Labor Union.
Biflex (Phils.) Inc. and Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Corporation (BILFEX) are sister companies situated in one big compound along with
another sister company, General Garments Corporation (GGC), they have a common entrance.
- The labor sector staged a welga ng bayan to protest the accelerating prices of oil. The UNIONS, led by their officers, herein petitioners, staged a
work stoppage which lasted for several days, prompting BILFEX to file a petition to declare the work stoppage illegal for failure to comply with
procedural requirements.
- The members of the UNION, who were refused to be admitted back to work, put up of tents, tables and chairs in front of the main gate of the
compound claiming that those were for the convenience of union members who reported every morning to check if the management would allow
them to report for work.
BILFEX, on the other hand, maintain that the work stoppage was illegal since the following requirements for the staging of a valid strike were not
complied with: (1) filing of notice of strike; (2) securing a strike vote, and (3) submission of a report of the strike vote to the Department of Labor and
Employment.
-

Issue: Was there a strike? If there was, was it illegal?

Held: YES on both issues. Stoppage of work due to welga ng bayan is in the nature of a general strike, an extended sympathy strike. It affects
numerous employers including those who do not have a dispute with their employees regarding their terms and conditions of employment.
Employees who have no labor dispute with their employer but who, on a day they are scheduled to work, refuse to work and instead join a welga
ng bayan commit an illegal work stoppage.
There being no showing that the UNION notified BILFEX of their intention, or that they were allowed by BILFEX, to join the welga ng bayan, their
work stoppage is beyond legal protection.
Even assuming arguendo that in staging the strike, UNION had complied with legal formalities, the strike would just the same be illegal, for by
blocking the free ingress to and egress from the company premises, they violated Article 264(e) of the Labor Code which provides that [n]o
person engaged in picketing shall obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employers premises for lawful purposes, or obstruct public
thoroughfares.
In fine, the legality of a strike is determined not only by compliance with its legal formalities but also by the means by which it is carried out.
The law grants the employer the option of declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal strike as having lost his employment. Reinstatement
of a striker or retention of his employment, despite his participation in an illegal strike, is a management prerogative which this Court may not
supplant.
Doctrine: Employees who have no labor dispute with their employer but who, on a day they are scheduled to work, refuse to work and instead join a
welga ng bayan commit an illegal work stoppage.

Philippine Diamond Hotel & Resort, Inc. v. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union
-

Facts:
The respondent union notified the petitioner hotel of its intention to negotiate a CBA for its members.
The HR Dept. of the hotel advised the union that since it was not certified by the DOLE as the exclusive bargaining representative (EBR), it could
not be recognized as such.
The union clarified that it was negotiating only for its members and warned that they would go on strike if the hotel refused to bargain.
The union later filed a Notice of Strike. Conciliation conferences were then conducted by the NCMB. In the meantime, the union filed a complaint
for ULP against the hotel.
The union demanded the conduct of a consent election, to which the hotel interposed no objection.
The parties agreed to meet again on 01 December 1997. But on 29 November 1996, the union suddenly went on strike.
Later, the NLRC issued a TRO for the strikers to cease and desist from obstructing the free ingress and egress from the hotel premises. The
strikers, however, refused to dismantle the tent they put up. The hotels guards attempted to dismantle the same but were hit by rocks.
The hotel filed a petition to declare the strike illegal. The DOLE Secretary later assumed jurisdiction and issued a return-to-work order.
NLRC declared the strike illegal and that the union officers and members were deemed to have lost their employment status.
CA modified the decision and ordered the reinstatement with backwages of union members.
Issues:
WON the strike was legal.
WON the union can bargain collectively in behalf of its members (and not in behalf of all the employees in the bargaining unit).
- WON the CA acted correctly in ordering the reinstatement with backwages of the union members who participated in the strike.
Ruling:
NO. It must be remembered that the strike was held because of the hotels alleged refusal to bargain. The union is admitted that it is not the EBR
of the employees in the hotel. Hence it cannot demand that the employer collectively bargain with it.
NO. This would only fragment the employees of the hotel. What the union will be achieving is to divide the employees, more particularly, the R&F
employees.
The other workers who are not members are at a serious disadvantage, because if the same shall be allowed, employees who are non-union
members will be economically impaired and will not be able to negotiate their terms and conditions of work, thus defeating the very essence and
reason of collective bargaining, which is an effective safeguard against the evil schemes of employers in terms and conditions of work.
NO. Evidence shows that the strikers used ropes and footed placards to block the entry and exit points of the hotel; also, they held a noise
barrage to and threatened guests with bodily harm. Police reports also show the strikers exploding firecrackers, thus causing panic.
The union members who committed illegal acts should be deemed to have lost their employment status. (see doctrine part)
The SC thus remanded the case to the LA, through the NLRC, for the purpose only of determining the respective liabilities of the strikers.
SC held that as a general rule, when employees voluntarily go on strike, even if in protest against ULP, no backwages during the strike is awarded.
Article 242 (a) must be read in relation to above-quoted Article 255. Only the labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the
employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit is the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective
bargaining.
The philosophy is to avoid fragmentation of the bargaining unit so as to strengthen the employees bargaining power with the management.
The right to strike is not absolute.
Even if the purpose of a strike is valid, the strike may still be held illegal where the means employed are illegal. Thus, the employment of violence,
intimidation, restraint or coercion in carrying out concerted activities which are injurious to the rights to property renders a strike illegal.
A 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 strike may be declared to have lost his employment status.
An ordinary striking worker cannot, thus be dismissed for mere participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof that he committed illegal acts
during a strike, unlike a union officer who may be dismissed by mere knowingly participating in an illegal strike and/or committing an illegal act during
a strike.