LABREL DIGEST Finals [Assigned]

GR NO L-14183 November 28, 1959

DINGLASAN, Benedicto [P]
Vs.
NATIONAL LABOR UNION, [R]
FACTS:
June 30, 1953 Respondent union filed a complaint for alleged
unfair labor practice committed by P [er] because locked out from
employment 46 drivers, members of the R union [June 27, 1953]
P [er] asked for the dismissal of the complaints on the following
grounds:
1. Court has no jurisdiction
a. over the person of the P
b. over the subject matter
2. R union was not the real party in interest
P [er] claimed that there existed no employer-employee
relationship [only lessor-lessee only] as the jeeps being used by the
drivers were rented out by the P [er] under the so called boundary
system
Court en banc no empoloyer-employee relationship between the
parties
On appeal ER-EE existed
Court R [er] engaged in the ULP charged in the complaint,
amounting to virtual lockout of his employee drivers [constitutes
discrimination]
The act of locking out committed by R [er] was made
without notice and no collective bargaining negotiation were ever
made
Mere suspicion by R [er], that a strike might be called by the
union, is no justification for such an act
R [er] guilty of ULP; no ER-EE relationship existed

Contention of R union P [er] refused to let them use and operate

the jeepneys upon learning that the drivers formed a labor union
among themselves, which constitutes an unlawful lockout and ULP
Contention of P [er] He did not lock out his drivers; he decided
to suspend their operation temporarily and consult his attorney,
believing honestly that:
1. No ER-EE existed between them &
2. He feared that the drivers might declare a strike and
abandon his jeepneys in the streets
But, the following morning, he immediately announced to
the drivers that they could take out his jeepneys.
ISSUE 1: W/N P [ER] COMMITTED ULP BY VIRTUAL LOCKOUT NO
RULING:
While the act of the P [er] in suspending the operation is illegal
and technically not in consonance with the Industrial Peace Act,
there are certain aspects which merit consideration, which was the
belief in good faith of P [er] that there is no ER-EE relationship
between them
Also, the day following the drivers suspension, P [er] urged the
drivers to return and resume the work, but the latter refused
It is clear that the stoppage of the operation was not the direct
consequence of Ps [er] locking them up or any wilful unfair or
discriminatory act of the P [er], but the result of the drivers
voluntary and deliberate refusal to return to work
ISSUE 2: W/N THE REINSTATEMENT WAS WITH BACK PAY NO
RULING:
There is no reason in granting back pay if there is no:
1. Any willful unfair labor practice or
2. Refusal of the R to admit their laborers back to work
(Philippines Marine Radio Officers Association vs. CIR)
In this case, while the drivers-members of R union may be
entitled to reinstatement, theres no justification for their receiving
back wage for the period that they refused to return to work.