1. Ikaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa vs.
NLRC
[GR No. 91980. June 27, 1991]
1. The Union known as Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM)
said to represent 4,500 employees of San Miguel
Corporation, presented to the company a demand for
correction of the significant distortion in wages.
2. In that demand, the Union explicitly invoked Section 4 of
RA 6727, The Wage Rationalization Act, which reads as
follows:
Where the application of the increases in the wages
rates under this section results in distortions as defined
under existing laws in the wage structure within an
establishment and gives rise to dispute therein, such
dispute shall first be settled voluntarily between
the parties and in the event of a deadlock, the same
shall be finally resolved through compulsory arbitration
by the regional branches of the National Labor Relations
Commission having jurisdiction over the workplace.
It shall be mandatory for the NLRC to conduct
continuous hearings and decide any dispute arising
under this section within twenty (20) calendar days
from the time said dispute is formally submitted
to it for arbitration. The pendency of a dispute arising
from a wage distortion shall not in any way delay the
applicability of the increase in the wage rates prescribed
under this section.
3. The Union claims that the demand was ignored. When the
Company rejected the reduced proposal of the Union
the members thereof, on their own accord, refused to
render overtime services, most especially at the Beer
Bottling Plants at Polo, starting October 16, 1989. In this
connection, the workers involved issues a joint notice
reading as follows:
Sama-samang pahayag: Kaming arawang manggagawa
ng Polo Brewery pawang kasapi ng Ilaw at Buklod ng
Manggagawa (IBM) ay nagkakaisang nagpasya na
ipatupad muna ang eight hours work shift pansamantala
habang hindi ipinapatupad ng SMC Management ang
tamang Wage Distortion.
4. It appears that the employees working hours/schedule has
been freely observed by the employees for the past 5
years and due to the abandonment of the longstanding
schedule of work and reversion to the eight-hour shift
substantial losses were incurred by SMC.
5. SMC filed a complaint with arbitration branch of NLRC
then before the NLRC for the latter to declare the
strike illegal.
6. Unions contention: workers refusal to work beyond 8
hours was a legitimate means of compelling SMC to correct
distortion.
7. SMC: The coordinated reduction by the Unions members of
the work time in order to compel SMC to yield to the
demand was an illegal and unprotected activity.
ISSUE: W/N the strike was legal? ILLEGAL. The strike invoking
the issue of wage distortion is illegal. The legality of these activities
depends on the legality of the purposes sought to be attained.
These joint or coordinated activities may be forbidden or
restricted by law or contract.
HELD:
Among the rights guaranteed to employees by the Labor Code
is that of engaging in concerted activities in order to attain
their legitimate objectives. Article 263 of the Labor Code
declares that in line with the policy of the State to encourage free
trade unionism and free collective bargaining, x x (w)orkers shall
have the right to engage in concerted activities for purposes of
collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and
protection. A similar right to engage in concerted
activities for mutual benefit and protection is tacitly and
traditionally recognized in respect of employers.
More common of these concerted activities as far as employees
are concerned are strikes, picketings and boycotts:
strikesthe temporary stoppage of work as a result of
an industrial or labor dispute
picketingthe marching to and fro at the employers
premises, usually accompanied by the display of
placards and other signs making known the facts
involved in a labor dispute
boycottsthe concerted refusal to patronize an
employers goods or services and to persuade others to
a like refusal.
As for the Employers:
lockoutthe temporary refusal to furnish work on account of
a labor dispute.

The same Article 263 provides that the right of legitimate labor
organizations to strike and picket, and of employer to lockout,
consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be
recognized and respected. The legality of these activities is
usually dependent on the legality of the purposes sought to
be attained and the means employed therefor.
The law or contract may however forbid or restrict these joint
or coordinated activities.
LAW:
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6727 prescribes a specific,
detailed and comprehensive procedure for the correction
thereof, thereby implicitly excluding strikes or lockouts or
other concerted activities as modes of settlement of the
issue.
In cases where there are no collective agreements or
recognized labor unions, the employers and workers shall
endeavor to correct such distortions. Any dispute arising
therefrom shall be settled through the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board and, if it remains
unresolved after ten (10) calendar days of conciliation,
shall be referred to the appropriate branch of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). It shall
be mandatory for the NLRC to conduct continuous hearings
and decide the dispute within twenty (20) calendar days
from the time said dispute is submitted for compulsory
arbitration.
The legislative intent that solution of the problem of
wage distortions shall be sought by voluntary
negotiation or abitration, and not by strikes, lockouts, or
other concerted activities of the employees or
management, is made clear in the rules implementing
RA 6727. Wherein wage distortions be first settled
voluntarily by the parties and eventually by compulsory
arbitration, declares that, Any issue involving wage
distortion shall not be a ground for a strike/lockout.
CONTRACT/CBA:
The CBA prescribes a similar eschewal of strikes or other
similar or related concerted activities as a mode of
resolving disputes or controversies, it clearly stated that
settlement of all disputes, disagreements or controversies of any
kind should be achieved by the stipulated grievance procedure and
ultimately by arbitration.
Hence, the Union was prohibited to declare & hold a strike or
engage in a non-peaceful concerted activities for the
settlement of its controversy w/ SMC as to wage distortions
or any other issue involving wages, hours of work,
conditions of employment & ER-EE relations.
In this case, the partial strike or concerted refusal by
the Union members to follow the five-year-old work schedule
which they had therefore been observing, resorted to as a
means of coercing correction of wage distortions,
as therefore forbidden by law and contract and, on this
account, illegal.
The wage distortion issue motivated the Unions
partial/limited strike.
The work schedule w/ built in overtime was not forced
upon them since it was agreed b/w the company & the
workers and was religiously followed by the latter for the
past 5 years w/ mutually beneficial results. Hence, it cant
be a matter of such great prejudice to the workers as to give
rise to a controversy b/w them & the management.
The workers never asked nor were there ever any
negotiations at their instance, for a change in that work
schedule prior to the strike. What really bothered them was the
issue on the wage distortion & not the number of hours. This was
apparent by the joint notice they circulated before the strike
wherein they stated that they would adopt the 8-hr work shift for a
while pending the correction by the company of the wage
distortion.
Even if there was no legal prohibition & assuming it really
didnt involve the wage distortions caused by RA 6727, the
concerted activity would still be illicit because it was
expressly stated in their contract/CBA that there would be no
strikes, slowdown, boycotts or any other interference w/ the
operations of the company during the term of the CBA.
Slowdown as a strike on the installment plan; as a willful
reduction in the rate of work by concerted action of workers
for the purpose of restricting the output of the employer, in
relation to a labor dispute; as an activity by which workers,
without a complete stoppage of work, retard production or their
performance of duties and functions to compel management to
grant their demands
Slowdown is generally condemned as inherently illicit and
unjustifiable, because while the employees continue to work and
remain at their positions and accept the wages paid to them, they
at the same time select what part of their allotted tasks they care
to perform of their own volition or refuse openly or secretly, to the
employers damage, to do other work; in other words, they
work on their own terms.
 constitutes a slowdown need not be gone into. Since the activity is
The question if the concerted adoption of different work schedule contrary to law (RA 6727) & the parties collective bargaining
than that prescribed by the management & adhered to for 5 yrs agreement.