Pages 516-523

Strikes and Lockouts

2017 Bar Question No. XIII (B): A sympathetic strike is stoppage of
work to make common cause with other strikers in another
establishment or business. Is the sympathetic strike valid? Explain
your answer. (1%)
Answer: The illegal stoppage of work by way of sympathetic strike
due to welga ng bayan is in the nature of a general strike, an extended
sympathy strike (Biflex Phils. Labor Union vs. Filflex Industrial and
Manufacturing Corporation, GR No. 155679). It affects numerous
employers including those who do not have a dispute with their
employees regarding the terms and conditions of employment.
Employees who have no labor dispute with their employer but who, on
a day they are schedules to work, refuse to work and instead join a
welga ng bayan commit an illegal work stoppage. Even if petitioners
joining the welga ng bayan were considered merely as an exercise of
their freedom of expression, freedom of assembly or freedom to
petition the government for redress of grievances, the exercise of
such rights are not absolute. For the protection of other significant
state interest such as the right to enterprise to reasonable returns on
investments, and to expansion and growth enshrined in the 1987
Constitution must also be considered, otherwise, oppression or
self-destruction of capital in order to promote the interests of labor
would be sanctioned. And it would give imprimaturto workers joining
demonstrations/rallies even before affording the employer an
opportunity to make the necessary arrangements to counteract the
implications of the work stoppage on the business, and ignore the
novel principle of shared responsibility between workers and
employers aimed at fostering industrial peace.There being no showing
that petitioners notified respondents of their intention, or that they
were allowed by respondents, to join the welga ng bayan on October
24,1990, their work stoppage is beyond legal protection.
2016 Bar Question No. V: Asia Union (Union) is the certified
bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Asia Pacific Hotel
(Hotel). The Union submitted its Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA) negotiation proposals to the Hotel. Due to the bargaining
deadlock, the Union, on December 20, 2014, filed a Notice of Strike
with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB).
Consequently, the Union conducted a Strike Vote on January 14,
2015, when it was approved. The next day, waiters who are members
of the Union came out of the Union office sporting closely cropped hair
or cleanly shaven heads. The next day, all the male Union members
came to work sporting the same hair style. The Hotel prevented these
workers from entering the premises, claiming that they violated the
company rule on Grooming Standards.
On January 16, 2015, the Union subsequently staged a picket outside
the Hotel premises and prevented other workers from entering the
Hotel. The Union members blocked the ingress and egress of
customers and employees to the Hotel premises, which caused the
Hotel severe lack of manpower and forced the Hotel to temporarily
cease operations resulting to substantial losses.
On January 20, 2015, the Hotel issued notices to Union members,
preventively suspending them and charging them with the following
offenses: (1) illegal picket; (2) violation of the company rule on
Grooming Standards; (3) illegal strike; and (4) commission of illegal
acts during the illegal strike. The Hotel later terminated the Union
officials and members who participated in the strike. The Union denied
that it engaged in an illegal strike and countered that the Hotel
committed an unfair labor practice (ULP) and a breach of the freedom
of speech.
Was the picketing legal? Was the mass action of the Union officials
and members an illegal strike? Explain.
Answer: The picket was illegal. The right to picket as a means of
communicating the facts of a labor dispute is a phase of freedom of
speech guaranteed by the constitution (De Leon vs. National Labor
Union). But this right is not absolute. Article 278 of the Labor Code
provides that no person engaged in picketing shall... obstruct the free
egress from the employer’s premises for lawful purposes or obstruct
public thorough fares. The acts of the union in blocking the entrance
and exit of the hotel which caused it to shut down temporarily makes
the picket illegal.
The actions of all the union members in cropping or shaving their head
is deemed an illegal strike. The Supreme Court ruled that the act of
the Union was not merely an expression of their grievance or
displeasure but was a calibrated and calculated act designed to inflict
serious damage to the hotel’s grooming standard which resulted in the
temporary cessation and disruption of the hotel’s operations (National
Union of Workers in the Hotel Restaurant and Allied Industries Dusit
Hotel Nikko Chapter vs. Court of Appeals). Hence, this should be
considered an illegal strike.
Rule on the allegations of ULP violation of freedom of speech.
Explain.
A: The Hotel is not guilty of ULP. The act of the hotel in suspending
and eventually dismissing the union officers who concertedly
antagonized and embarrassed the hotel management and, in doing so,
effectively disrupted the operations of the hotel, is an act of
self-preservation. The law in protecting the rights of the laborer
authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer.
The right of the employer to dismiss its erring employees is a measure
of self protection (Filipro v. NLRC, G.R. No. 70546). The power to
dismiss an employee is a recognized prerogative that is inherent in the
employee's right to freely manage and regulate its business.
 It cannot be said that the hotel is guilty of violating the union
member’s right to freedom of speech. The right to freedom of
expression is not absolute; it is subject to regulation so that it may not
be injurious to the right of another or to society. The union member’s
act of cropping or shaving their heads caused substantial losses to the
hotel cause by the cessation of its operations. Jurisprudence provides
that the union's violation of the hotel grooming standards was clearly
a deliberate and concerted action to undermine the authority of and to
embarrass the hotel and was, therefore, not a protected action. The
physical appearance of the hotel employees directly reflect the
character and well-being of the hotel, being a five-star hotel that
provides service to topnotch clients.
2000 Bar Question No. XVIII: The workers engaged in picketing
activity in the course of a strike.
Will picketing be legal if non-employees of the strike-bound employer
participate in the activity?
A: Yes, the picketing is legal even though non-employees join it.
Picketing is a form of the exercise of freedom of speech. Picketing,
provided it is held peacefully, is a constitutional right. The disputants in
a legal dispute need not be employer-employee of each other (De
Leon vs. National Labor Union).
Can picketing activity be curtailed when illegal acts are committed by
the picketing workers in the course of the activity?

Answer: No, the picketing activity itself cannot be curtailed. What can
be curtailed are the illegal acts being done in the course of the
picketing. However, it this is a “national interest” case under Article
263(g), the strike or work stoppage may be stopped by the power of
assumption of jurisdiction or certification of the case to the National
Labor Relations Commission (Nagkakaisang Mangagawa sa Cuison
Hotel vs. Libron, 1983).
2008 Bar Question No. XIII: The rank-and-file union staged a strike in
the company premises which caused the disruption of business
operations. The supervisors union of the same company filed a money
claim for unpaid salaries for the duration of the strike, arguing that the
supervisors’ failure to report for work was not attributable to them. The
company contended that it was equally faultless, for the strike was not
the direct consequence of any lockout or unfair labor practice. May the
company be held liable for the salaries of the supervisor? Decide.
Answer: No, following the “no work, no pay” principle, the supervisors
are not entitled to their money claim for unpaid salaries. They should
not be compensated for services skipped during the strike. The
age-old rule governing the relation between labor and capital, or
management and employee of a “fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor”
remains as the basic factor in determining the employees’ wage
(Aklan Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. NLRC, GR No. 121439).

1995 Bar Question No. XIV: If the strike is illegal, will the strikers be
entitled to their wages for the duration of the strike? Explain.
Answer: No, the applicable doctrine will be: No work, no pay, unless
there is an agreement to pay strike duration pay.
Part I
2009 Bar Question No. IX (a): Can a labor union invoke wage
distortion as a valid ground to go on strike? Explain.

Answer: No, the existence of wage distortion is not a valid ground for
staging a strike because Article 124 of the Labor Code provides for a
specific method or procedure for correcting wage distortion. The
legislative intent that solution of the problem of wage distortion shall
be sought by voluntary arbitration and not by strikes, lockouts, or other
concerted activities of the employees or the management. Any issue
involving wage distortion shall not be a ground for a strike or lockout.
(Ilaw at Buklod ng Mangagawa vs. NLRC, 1991).