STRIKE ACTIVITY A. DEFINITION Art.

212(o) "Strike" means any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. Art. 212(l) labor dispute includes any controversy or matter concerning terms or conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. Basic Concepts: 1. Initiating Party: Employer: Lock-out Union: Strike 2. Cause: Labor dispute An inter-union and intra-union dispute cannot be a valid ground for a strike or lock-out since a labor dispute is technically defined under Art. 212. Welga ng Bayan (Political Strike) is not a valid strike under the Labor Code since no labor dispute is involved. A welga ng bayan for purpose of lowering oil price is not a valid strike under the Labor Code but it may be upheld as a valid exercise of right of speech. However, the employee may suffer the consequence of abandonmeant of work Wage distortion are not also a valid ground for a strike since the law provides for a procedure to settle wage distortion problems (see Ilaw at Buklod case) 3. Temporary in Nature Employee-Employer relationship continues to exist. Mere participation in a strike is not a ground for termination. B. NATURE AND PURPOSE Phil. Can Co. v. CIR (1950) strike is a coercive measure resorted to by laborers to enforce their demands.
idea behind a strike is that a company engaged in a profitable business cannot afford to have its production or activities interrupted, much less, paralyzed. Any interruption or stoppage of production

seek to interrupt and paralyze the business and production of the company. The employer company is on the defensive. It almost invariably wants the strike stopped and the strikers back to work so as to resume and continue production. Because of this threat or danger of loss to the company, it not infrequently gives in to the demands of the strikers, just so it can maintain the continuity of its production. Or, if the strikers refuse to return to work, the employer company seeks permission from the court to employ other laborers to take their places. In such cases, pending determination of the conflict, especially where public interests so require or when the court cannot promptly decide the case, the strikers are

ordered back to work.

3. EFFECT WORK RELATIONSHIP Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. v. SSS (1972) Although during a strike the worker renders no work or service and receives no compensation, yet his relationship as an employee with his employer is not severed or dissolved. Strike is the workers' means of expressing their grievances to employers and enforcing compliance with their demands made upon them. On the contrary, a strike may improve the employer-employee relationship by bringing about better working conditions and more efficient services. 4. TYPES, CHANGES AND CONVERSION TYPES a. unfair labor practice Art. 263(c) b. Bargaining Deadlock Economic Consolidated Labor Assoc. of the Phil. V. Marsman and Co. (1984) An economic strike is defined as one which is to forge wage or other concessions from the employer which he is not required by law to grant. CHANGE IN TYPE Consolidated Labor Assoc. of the Phil. V. Marsman and Co. (1984) Initially the strike staged by the Union was meant to compel the Company to grant it certain economic benefits set forth in its proposal for collective bargaining. The strike was an economic one, and the striking employees would have a right to be reinstated if, in the interim, the employer had not hired other permanent workers to replace them. For it is recognized that during the pendency

spells loss, even disaster.

the overhead expenses consisting of salaries of its officials, including real estate taxes and license fees continue. Knowing this, the strikers by going on strike

of an economic strike an employer may take steps to continue and protect his business by supplying places left vacant by the strikers, and is not bound to discharge those hired for that purpose upon election of the strikers to resume their employment. But the strike changed its character from the time the Company refused to reinstate complainants because of their union activities after it had offered to admit all the strikers and in fact did readmit the others. It was then converted into an unfair labor practice strike. The Union began the strike because it believed in good faith that settlement of their demands was at an impasse and that further negotiations would only come to naught. It stopped the strike upon the belief they could go back to work. Then it renewed the strike (or it started a new strike) as a protest against the discrimination practiced by the Company. Both are valid grounds for going on a strike. In an economic strike, the strikers are not entitled to backpay, since the employer should get the equivalent day's work for what he pays his employees. During the time that the strike was an economic one, complainants had no right to back pay. The Industrial Court could not have made a finding of unfair labor practice with respect to such time, as none had so far been committed. This being an unfair labor practice case, it cannot, therefore, order reinstatement much less back pay for that period. On the other hand, even after the court has made a finding of unfair labor practice, it still has the discretion to determine whether or not to grant back pay. Such discretion was not abused when it denied back wages to complainants, considering the climate of violence which attended the strike and picket that the complainants conducted. While the complainants ordered reinstated did not actively take part in the acts of violence, their minatory attitude towards the Company may be gathered from the fact that from the very first day of the strike policemen had to patrol the strike zone in order to preserve peace. NON-CONVERSION STRIKE TO LOCKOUT Rizal Cement Workers Union v. CIR (1962) It becomes, therefore, manifest that the issues raised the by the petitioner center on whether or not its members, are entitled to back wages. Petitioner principally based its claim for back wages on the theory that there was a lock-out or "virtual lock-out", which prevented them to work.

The law (Act No. 875), provides:

"SEC.15. Violation of Duty to Bargain Collectively.-It shall be unlawful for any employer to refuse to bargain collectively with the representative of his employees, or to declare a lockout without having first bargained collectively with the representative of its employees, in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Any employee whose work has stopped as a consequence of such lockout shall be entitled to backpay. * * *"

It will thus be seen that under the above provision, the lock-out referred to is that which is committed by the employer, if it refused to give work to its workers. No finding was made by the CIR on the question of lockout. That there was no lockout is clear from the observations of the respondent court, when it said: "the striking union decided on this question of strike which was carried out and maintained by picketing the respondent's cement plant at Binagonan, Rizal". The offer to return to work made by the members of the petitioner, did not make the refusal to accept the same, a lockout. This is so because the case on the legality or not of the strike was then pending decision by the CIR and said Court did not issue any order in connection with said offer. The strike which was open and publicly declared by the petitioner union on May 27, 1956, can riot be converted into a pure and simple lockout, by the mere expedient of filing before the trial court a notice of offer to return to work, during the pendency of the labor dispute. Petitioner alleges that said refusal to accept them, constituted a "virtual lockout". T The law does not provide for a virtual lockout. But assuming, that the nonacceptance of the unconditional offer to return to work was virtual lockout, still the circumstances of the case would not justify the demand that the strikers are entitled ipso, jure to back wages. This is so because the respondent court found that the strike was attended by isolated acts of violence committed by the strikers, and stated, in the same breath, that certain degree of reason and fairness be accorded. 5. GROUNDS ALLOWABLE STRIKES Art. 263(c) Strikes, picketing and lockouts.

PROHIBITED STRIKES Art. 263 (g) When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return-towork and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same. In line with the national concern for and the highest respect accorded to the right of patients to life and health, strikes and lockouts in hospitals, clinics and similar medical institutions shall, to every extent possible, be avoided, and all serious efforts, not only by labor and management but government as well, be exhausted to substantially minimize, if not prevent, their adverse effects on such life and health, through the exercise, however legitimate, by labor of its right to strike and by management to lockout. In labor disputes adversely affecting the continued operation of such hospitals, clinics or medical institutions, it shall be the duty of the striking union or lockingout employer to provide and maintain an effective skeletal workforce of medical and other health personnel, whose movement and services shall be unhampered and unrestricted, as are necessary to insure the proper and adequate protection of the life and health of its patients, most especially emergency cases, for the duration of the strike or lockout. In such cases, therefore, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may immediately assume, within twenty four (24) hours from knowledge of the occurrence of such a strike or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or certify it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. For this purpose, the contending parties are strictly enjoined to comply with such orders, prohibitions and/or injunctions as are issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission, under

pain of immediate disciplinary action, including dismissal or loss of employment status or payment by the locking-out employer of backwages, damages and other affirmative relief, even criminal prosecution against either or both of them. The foregoing notwithstanding, the President of the Philippines shall not be precluded from determining the industries that, in his opinion, are indispensable to the national interest, and from intervening at any time and assuming jurisdiction over any such labor dispute in order to settle or terminate the same. Art. 264 Prohibited activities. (a)No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the Ministry. No strike or lockout shall be declared after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Minister or after certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout. Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a consequence of any unlawful lockout shall be entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. Any 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 a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike. Art. 265 Improved offer balloting. In an effort to settle a strike, the Department of Labor and Employment shall conduct a referendum by secret ballot on the improved offer of the employer on or before the 30th day of the strike. When at least a majority of the union members vote to accept the improved offer the striking workers shall immediately return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the agreement. In case of a lockout, the Department of Labor and Employment shall also conduct a referendum by secret balloting on the reduced offer of the union on or before the 30th day of the lockout. When at least a majority of the board of directors or trustees or the partners holding the controlling interest in the case of a partnership vote to accept the

reduced offer, the workers shall immediately return to work and the employer shall thereupon readmit them upon the signing of the agreement. Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) v. NLRC (1991) WAGE DISTORTION cannot be a ground for strike

situation, it is not essential that the unfair labor practice act has, in fact, been committed; it suffices that the striking workers are shown to have acted honestly on an impression that the company has committed such unfair labor practice and the surrounding circumstances could wan-ant such a belief in good faith. 6. STRIKING PARTY Art. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. (b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection. The right of legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be recognized and respected. However, no labor union may strike and no employer may declare a lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intraunion disputes. (c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. o However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting, where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. Art. 250 Procedure in collective bargaining. The following procedures shall be observed in collective bargaining: f. When a party desires to negotiate an agreement, it shall serve a written notice upon the other party with a statement of its proposals. The other party shall make a reply thereto not later than ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such notice; g. Should differences arise on the basis of such notice and reply, either party may request for a conference which shall begin not later than ten (10) calendar days from the date of request. h. If the dispute is not settled, the Board shall intervene upon request of either or both parties or at its own initiative and immediately call the parties to conciliation meetings. The Board shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of the parties to such meetings. It shall be the duty

Grand Boulevard Hotel v. Grand Labor Organization (2003) Under Art. 263, the requisites for a valid strike are as follows: (a) a notice of strike filed with the DOLE thirty days before the intended date thereof or fifteen days in case of ULP; (b) strike vote approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose; (c) notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike. The requisite seven-day period is intended to give the DOLE an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike really carries the approval of the majority of the union members. The notice of strike and the cooling-off period were intended to provide an opportunity for mediation and conciliation. The requirements are mandatory and failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike illegal. A strike simultaneously with or immediately after a notice of strike will render the requisite periods nugatory. Moreover, a strike that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the SOLE of an assumption or certification order, becomes a prohibited activity and, thus, illegal pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended. As this Court ruled in Union of Filipro Employees v. Nestle Philippines, Inc., under Article 264(a) of the said code, once an assumption certification order is issued by the SOLE, strikes are enjoined or if one has already taken place, all strikers shall immediately return to work: The respondents claim of good faith is not a valid excuse to dispense with the procedural steps for a lawful strike. NO STRIKE CLAUSE Panay Electric Co. v. NLRC (1995) It has heretofore been held that a "no strike, no lock-out" provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") is a valid stipulation although the clause may be invoked by an employer only when the strike is economic in nature or one which is conducted to force wage or other concessions from the employer that are not mandated to be granted by the law itself. It would be inapplicable to prevent a strike which is grounded on unfair labor practice. In this

of the parties to participate fully and promptly in the conciliation meetings the Board may call; i. During the conciliation proceedings in the Board, the parties are prohibited from doing any act which may disrupt or impede the early settlement of the disputes; and j. The Board shall exert all efforts to settle disputes amicably and encourage the parties to submit their case to a voluntary arbitrator. Art. 251 Duty to bargain collectively in the absence of collective bargaining agreements. In the absence of an agreement or other voluntary arrangement providing for a more expeditious manner of collective bargaining, it shall be the duty of employer and the representatives of the employees to bargain collectively in accordance with the provisions of this Code. Art. 252 Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. The duty to bargain collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreements if requested by either party but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to make any concession. FILING OF NOTICE OF INTENTION Art. 263(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting, where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. (d) The notice must be in accordance with such implementing rules and regulations as the Minister of Labor and Employment may promulgate. (e) During the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of the Ministry to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. Should the dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days from the mandatory filing of the notice, the labor union may strike or the employer may declare a lockout. OBSERVANCE COOLING-OFF PERIOD Art. 263(c) In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of

strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 day before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting, where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. (e) During the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of the Ministry to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. Should the dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days from the mandatory filing of the notice, o the labor union may strike or the employer may declare a lockout. VOTE, CONDUCT OF AND PERIOD OF VALIDITY Art. 263 (f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a majority of the board of directors of the corporation or association or of the partners in a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration of the dispute based on substantially the same grounds considered when the strike or lockout vote was taken. The Ministry may, at its own initiative or upon the request of any affected party, supervise the conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the union or the employer shall furnish the Ministry the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to the cooling-off period herein provided. Art. 264 Prohibited activities. (a)No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the Ministry. x x x Piero v. NLRC (2004)

Samahang Manggagawa etc. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. (2004) The basic issue for our determination is whether the strike staged by petitioners officers and members is illegal. Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code, as amended, provide:
ART. 263. STRIKES, PICKETING AND LOCKOUTS. (c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike x x x with the Ministry (now Department) at least 30 days before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. xxx (f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. x x x. The decision shall be valid for the duration of the dispute based on substantially the same grounds considered when the strike or lockout vote was taken. The Ministry (now Department) may at its own initiative or upon the request of any affected party, supervise the conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the union x x x shall furnish the Ministry (now Department) the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to the cooling-off period herein provided. x x x. ART. 264. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES. (a) No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first having filed the notice required in the preceding article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the Ministry (now Department). x x x.

existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately; 2. The strike shall be supported by a majority vote of the members of the union obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for the purpose; and 3. A strike vote shall be reported to the Department of Labor and Employment at least seven (7) days before the intended strike. There is no showing that the petitioner union observed the 7-day strike ban; and that the results of the strike vote were submitted by petitioners to the Department of Labor and Employment at least seven (7) days before the strike. We thus hold that for failing to comply with the mandatory requirements of Article 263 (c) and (f) of the Labor Code, the strike mounted by petitioner union on May 20, 1994 is illegal. In Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. vs. NLRC, we stressed that the language of the law leaves no room for doubt that the cooling-off period and the seven-day strike ban after the strike-vote report were intended to be mandatory. Capitol Medical Center, Inc. v. NLRC (2005) We agree with the petitioner that the respondent Union failed to comply with the second paragraph of Section 10, Rule XXII of the Omnibus Rules of the NLRC which reads:
Section 10. Strike or lockout vote. A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for the purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a majority of the Board of Directors of the employer, corporation or association or the partners obtained by a secret ballot in a meeting called for the purpose. The regional branch of the Board may, at its own initiative or upon the request of any affected party, supervise the conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the union or the employer shall furnish the regional branch of the Board and notice of meetings referred to in the preceding paragraph at least twenty-four (24) hours before such meetings as well as the results of the voting at least seven (7) days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to the cooling-off period provided in this Rule.

Following are the Implementing Guidelines of the above provisions issued by the Department of Labor and Employment: 1. A strike shall be filed with the Department of Labor and Employment at least 15 days if the issues raised are unfair labor practice or at least 30 days if the issue involved bargaining deadlock. However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting where the

Although the second paragraph of Section 10 of the said Rule is not provided in the Labor Code of the Philippines, nevertheless, the same was incorporated in the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code and has the force and effect of law. Aside from the mandatory notices embedded in Article 263, paragraphs (c) and (f) of the Labor Code, a union intending to stage a strike is mandated to notify the NCMB of the meeting for the conduct of strike vote, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to such meeting. Unless the NCMB is notified of the date, place and time of the meeting of the union members for the conduct of a strike vote, the NCMB would be unable to supervise the holding of the same, if and when it

decides to exercise its power of supervision. In National Federation of Labor v. NLRC, the Court enumerated the notices required by Article 263 of the Labor Code and the Implementing Rules, which include the 24-hour prior notice to the NCMB: 1) A notice of strike, with the required contents, should be filed with the DOLE, specifically the Regional Branch of the NCMB, copy furnished the employer of the union; 2) A cooling-off period must be observed between the filing of notice and the actual execution of the strike thirty (30) days in case of bargaining deadlock and fifteen (15) days in case of unfair labor practice. However, in the case of union busting where the unions existence is threatened, the cooling-off period need not be observed. 4) Before a strike is actually commenced, a strike vote should be taken by secret balloting, with a 24-hour prior notice to NCMB. The decision to declare a strike requires the secretballot approval of majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned. 5) The result of the strike vote should be reported to the NCMB at least seven (7) days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to the coolingoff period. A union is mandated to notify the NCMB of an impending dispute in a particular bargaining unit via a notice of strike. Thereafter, the NCMB, through its conciliator-mediators, shall call the parties to a conference at the soonest possible time in order to actively assist them in exploring all possibilities for amicable settlement. In the event of the failure in the conciliation/mediation proceedings, the parties shall be encouraged to submit their dispute for voluntary arbitration. However, if the parties refuse, the union may hold a strike vote, and if the requisite number of votes is obtained, a strike may ensue. The purpose of the strike vote is to ensure that the decision to strike broadly rests with the majority of the union members in general and not with a mere discourage wildcat strikes, union bossism and even corruption. A strike vote report submitted to the NCMB at least seven days prior to the intended date of strike ensures that a strike vote was, indeed, taken. In the event that the report is false, the sevenday period affords the members an opportunity to take the appropriate remedy before it is too late. The 15 to 30 day cooling-off period is designed to afford the parties the opportunity to amicably resolve the dispute with the assistance of the NCMB conciliator/mediator, while the seven-day

strike ban is intended to give the DOLE an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike really carries the imprimatur of the majority of the union member. The requirement of giving notice of the conduct of a strike vote to the NCMB at least 24 hours before the meeting for the said purpose is designed to (a) inform the NCMB of the intent of the union to conduct a strike vote; (b) give the NCMB ample time to decide on whether or not there is a need to supervise the conduct of the strike vote to prevent any acts of violence and/or irregularities attendant thereto; and (c) should the NCMB decide on its own initiative or upon the request of an interested party including the employer, to supervise the strike vote, to give it ample time to prepare for the deployment of the requisite personnel, including peace officers if need be. Unless and until the NCMB is notified at least 24 hours of the unions decision to conduct a strike vote, and the date, place, and time thereof, the NCMB cannot determine for itself whether to supervise a strike vote meeting or not and insure its peaceful and regular conduct. The failure of a union to comply with the requirement of the giving of notice to the NCMB at least 24 hours prior to the holding of a strike vote meeting will render the subsequent strike staged by the union illegal. In this case, the respondent Union failed to comply with the 24-hour prior notice requirement to the NCMB before it conducted the alleged strike vote meeting on November 10, 1997. As a result, the petitioner complained that no strike vote meeting ever took place and averred that the strike staged by the respondent union was illegal. Conformably to Article 264 of the Labor Code and Section 7, Rule XXII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, no labor organization shall declare a strike unless supported by a majority vote of the members of the union obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. The requirement is mandatory and the failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike illegal. The union is thus mandated to allege and prove compliance with the requirements of the law. Bukluran ng Manggagawa sa Clothman Knitting Corporation- Solidarity Unions in the Phil. For Employment and Reforms v. CA (2005) Clearly, the petitioner union, its officers, members and supporters staged a strike. In order for a strike to be valid, the following requirements laid down in paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code must be complied with: (a) a notice of strike must be filed; (b) a strike-vote must be taken; and (c) the results of the strikevote must be reported to the DOLE. It bears stressing that these requirements are

mandatory, meaning, non-compliance therewith makes the strike illegal. The evident intention of the law in requiring the strike notice and strikevote report is to reasonably regulate the right to strike, which is essential to the attainment of legitimate policy objectives embodied in the law. Considering that the petitioner union failed to comply with the aforesaid requirements, the strike staged on June 11 to 18, 2001 is illegal. Consequently, the officers of the union who participated therein are deemed to have lost their employment status.