Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

Philippine Blooming Mills Employment Organization vs.

BloomingMills Co., Inc. and Court of Industrial Relations (1973)

Union officers of the Philippine Blooming Mills Co. Inc. (PBM) weredismissed for
allegedly violating the no strike-no lockout provision of theircollective bargaining
agreement (CBA) after staging a mass demonstration atMalacaang.PBMEO was set to
stage a mass demonstration at Malacaang on March 4, 1969against abuses of the Pasig
police, where employees on the first, regular, and third shifts will participate. PBMEO
informed company two days before the said demonstration and asked to excuse all
the workers participating. But a day before the demonstration, PBM said the rally
should not prejudice normal office operations, thus employees without prior filing of a
leave of absence who fail to report for the first and regular shifts on March 4 shall be
dismissed for violating their CBA. However, union officers said there was no violation
because the demonstration was against the Pasig police and not the company. They
added that the rally was an exercise of their freedom of speech. In a decision penned by
Judge Joaquin Salvador of the Court of Industrial Relations, eight of the Philippine
Blooming Mills Employment Organization (PBMEO) officers were found guilty of
bargaining in bad faith and were thus removed as employees of PBM. PBMEO filed a
motion for reconsideration, which CIR dismissed the motion for passing two days late
from the 10-day deadline the court allowed.

Whether or not CIR and PBM Co. Inc. violated

freedom of expression and assembly on the grounds that PBM Co. illegally dismissed its
employees for participating in a mass demonstration.

VIOLATED. The rally was not against the company and therefore there is no violation
of the

no strike-no lockout

provision of their CBA. To charge PBMEO of bargaining in bad faith extends the
jurisdiction of the CBA and inhibits freedom of
speech. The company failed to protect its employees from the Pasig polices abuse of
power, went to the extent of dismissing their employees, and instead prioritized material
losses. Moreover, CIR could have easily accepted the motion for reconsideration.
Procedural rules do not supersede the Constitution and may be overruled in a bid to
achieve justice, especially in cases of free speech.