0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
49 просмотров7 страниц
The document discusses various topics related to labor disputes and strikes under Philippine law. It begins by summarizing a Supreme Court case ruling that mass protest actions by employees during collective bargaining negotiations that paralyzed bank operations constituted an illegal strike, even though the employees did not use the term "strike." It then provides definitions and discussions of no strike clauses, runaway shops, innocent bystanders, and compensation of striking workers. The document sets forth general rules and exceptions regarding back wages for illegal strikes. It concludes by discussing the requirements for a valid lockout under Philippine law.
The document discusses various topics related to labor disputes and strikes under Philippine law. It begins by summarizing a Supreme Court case ruling that mass protest actions by employees during collective bargaining negotiations that paralyzed bank operations constituted an illegal strike, even though the employees did not use the term "strike." It then provides definitions and discussions of no strike clauses, runaway shops, innocent bystanders, and compensation of striking workers. The document sets forth general rules and exceptions regarding back wages for illegal strikes. It concludes by discussing the requirements for a valid lockout under Philippine law.
The document discusses various topics related to labor disputes and strikes under Philippine law. It begins by summarizing a Supreme Court case ruling that mass protest actions by employees during collective bargaining negotiations that paralyzed bank operations constituted an illegal strike, even though the employees did not use the term "strike." It then provides definitions and discussions of no strike clauses, runaway shops, innocent bystanders, and compensation of striking workers. The document sets forth general rules and exceptions regarding back wages for illegal strikes. It concludes by discussing the requirements for a valid lockout under Philippine law.
NATURE OF THE MASS ACTION DIRECTED AGAINST DOLE AFTER
THE ASSUMPTION OF JUSRISDICTION BY THE SECRETARY OF
LABOR Case: Solidbank Corporation etc., v. Solid Bank Union, et al., G.R. No. 159461, 15 November 2010. Facts: During the collective bargaining negotiations between Solidbank and its Union, the latter declared a deadlocked and some union members staged a series of mass actions. In view of an impending actual strike, the secretary of labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and directed the parties to cease and decease from committing any and all acts that might exacerbate the situation. Subsequently, thereafter, an overwhelming majority of union members mounted a mass leave and protest action at the DOLE premises against the assumption order f the Secretary of labor, while the banks provincial branches joined in and boycotted regular work; thus, paralyzing bank operations nationwide. The employees work abandonment/boycott lasted for 3 days. Issue: Is the protest action staged by the employees a legitimate exercise of their right for free expression, and not a strike prescribed when the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the impasse between the Bank and the Union in the collective bargaining negotiation? Ruling: It is a strike. Article 212 of the Labor Code, as amended, defines strike as any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. The fact that the conventional term "strike" was not used by the striking employees to describe their common course of action is inconsequential, since the substance of the situation, and not its appearance, will be deemed to be controlling. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that once the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction, it should not be interfered with the application of the coercive processes of a strike or lock-out.
NO STRIKE, NO LOCK-OUT CLAUSE IN THE CBA
No Strike No Lock-out clause in the CBA applies only to economic strikes. Hence, if the strike is founded on an unfair labor practice of the employer, a strike declared by the union cannot be considered a violation of the no-strike clause. (See case: Master Iron Labor Union v. NLRC)
No Strike No Lock-out provision in the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) is a valid stipulation but may be invoked only by the employer when the strike is economic in nature or oe that is conducted to force wage or other concessions from the employer what are not mandated to be granted by the law. It would be in applicable to grant a strike which is grounded on unfair labor practice. (See case: Panay Electric Company Inc. v NLRC)
The strike conducted by the union was illegal for being in
violation of the no stike, no lock-out proviso and for failure to bring Unions grievances under the grievance procedure in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. (See case: Panay Electric Company Inc. v NLRC, ibid and Sons Inc. v. CA, et al.,)
The workers unjustified unilateral alteration of the 24 hour work
schedule through their concerted activities of overtime boycott and work slow down can be classified as a strike on an installment basis. It is constituted a violation of their CBA, which prohibits the union of employee, during the existence of the CBA, to stage a strike or engage in slowdown or interruption of work. (See case: Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW, et al, v. Interphil Laboratories, Inc., et al.,)
RUNAWAY SHOP Defined
A runaway shop is defined as an industrial plant moved by
its owners from one location to another to escape union labor regulations or state laws, but the term is also used to describe a plant removed to a new location in order to discriminate against employees at the old plant because of their union activities.[14] It is one wherein the employer moves its business to another location or it temporarily closes its business for anti- union purposes.[15] A runaway shop in this sense, is a relocation motivated by anti-union animus rather than for business reasons. In this case, however, Ionics was not set up merely for the purpose of transferring the business of Complex. At the time the labor dispute arose at Complex, Ionics was already existing as an independent company. As earlier mentioned, it has been in existence since July 5, 1984. It cannot, therefore, be said that the temporary closure in Complex and its subsequent transfer of business to Ionics was for anti-union purposes. The Union failed to show that the primary reason for the closure of the establishment was due to the union activities of the employees.
INNOCENT BY STANDER RULE
An innocent bystander, who seeks to enjoin a labor strike, must satisfy the court that aside from the grounds specified in Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, it is entirely different from, without any connection whatsoever to, either party to the dispute and, therefore, its interests are totally foreign to the context thereof (MFS Tire and Rubber, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 128632, 1999).
Employer as bystander rule
In all cases, whether the petition for certification election is filed
by the employer or a legitimate labor organization, the employer shall not be considered a party thereto with a concomitant right to oppose a petition for certification election. The employer's participation shall be limited to being notified or informed of the petition and submission of the list of employees during the pre-election conference should the med-arbiter act favorably on the petition. (Article 285-A, R.A. 9481).
QUESTIONS ON COMPENSATION OF STRIKING WORKERS
The union members who were merely instigated to participate in he illegal strike should be treated differently from their leaders. Part of the benign consideration for labor is the policy of reinstating rank and file workers who were merely misled in supporting illegal strikes. Nonetheless, this reinstated workers shall not be entitled to back wages as they should not be compensated for services skipped during the illegal strike. General Rule: Backwages shall not be awarded in an economic strike on the principle that a fair days wage accrues only for a fair days labor. This court must thus hearken to its policy that when employees voluntarily go on strike, even if in protest against unfair labor practice. No backwages during the strike is awarded. Even in cases of ULP strikes, award for backwages rests on the courts discretion and only in exceptional cases. Exceptions to the no backwages rule: a) When the employees were illegally locked out thus compel them to stage a strike; b) When the employer is guilty of the grossest form of ULP; c) When the employer committee discrimination in the rehiring of strikers by refusing to readmit those against whom there were pending criminal cases while admitting nonstrikers who were also criminally charged in court; d) When the workers who staged the voluntary ULP strike offered to return to work unconditionally but the employer refuse to reinstate them.
Requisites for the entitlement to backwages of strikers:
a) The strike was legal
b) There was an unconditional offer to return to work; and c) The strikers were refused reinstatement.
ARE THE STRIKERS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF WAGES DURING THE
PERIOD OF A LAWFUL STRIKE?
A. As a general rule, striking employees are not entitled to
the payment of wages for unworked days during the period of the strike pursuant to the principle of No work- No pay. However, this does not preclude the parties from entering into an agreement to the contrary.
On the other hand, when strikers abandon the strike and
apply for reinstatement despite the existence of valid grounds but the employer either refuses to reinstate them or imposes upon their reinstatement new conditions that constitute unfair labor practices, the strikers, who refuse to accept the new conditions and are consequently refused reinstatement, are entitled to the losses of pay they may have suffered by reason of the employers discriminatory acts from the time they were refused reinstatement.
WAIVER OF ILLEGALITY OF STRIKE
When the employer accedes to the peaceful settlement brokered by the NLRC by agreeing to accept all employees who had not yet returned to work, it waives the issue of the illegality of the strike, unless the employer did so without prejudice to whatever legal action it may take against those who take illegal acts. LOCKOUT Association of Independent Unions in the Philippines v. National Labor Relations Commission Held:
Requirements of a valid lockout:
Art. 263 (f), Labor Code: A decision to declare a lockout 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. The decision shall be valid for the duration of the period based on substantially the same grounds considered when the strike or lockout vote was taken. The ministry man on 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. All the requisites for a valid strike likewise apply for lockout to be valid. Thus, it must be for lawful purpose, undertaken through lawful means, and in compliance with the procedural requirements of law such as: notice of lockout, cooling off period, taking an dfiling of lockout vote, and seven day lockout ban. PICKETING MSF Tire and Rubber, Inc. v. Court of Appeals Held:
The law prohibits any person engaged in from obstructing free
ingress to or egress from employers premises fro lawful purposes. See case: Chua v. NLRC Pickets may not aggressively interfere with the right of peaceful ingress to or egress from the employers shop or obstruct public thoroughfares; picketing is not peaceful where a sidewalk or entrance to a place of business is obstructed by picketers parading around in a circle or lying on the sidewalk. See case: Phimco Industries, Inc. v Phimco Industries Labor Association The act of the workers in failing to heed the order of their superior form joining the picket line is only tantamount to insubordination. Which cannot be considered a san illegal or unlawful act committed during the strike to justify their dismissal from employment. See case: International Container Terminal Services v. NLRC LIBELOUS STATEMENTS The act of employee in publishing his suspicion in a newspaper, that his employer exerting political pressure on a public official to thwart some legitimate activities of the employees, which charge in the least, would sully the employers reputation, is held to be an act inimical to the employers interest, and the fact that the same was made in the union newspaper does not alter its deleterious character nor shield or protect it on the ground that it is a union activity, because such end can be achieved without resortto improper conduct or behavior. Such act constitutes a misconduct which is a just cause for dismissal. See case: Eugenio Lopez, Sr., et al. v. Chronicles Publications Employees Associations, et a. RULES ON PICKETING Guidelines on Removal of Illegal Blockage at factory gates, DOLE Memo dated 22 October 1987 Picketing as part of the freedom of expression during strikes shall be respected, provided that it is peaceful. Shanties and structures set up to effectively block lawfull ingress to, and egress from, company premises for legal purposes and the free passage to public thoroughfares may be summarily demolished in accordance with law. Guidelines for Conduct of PNP/AFP Personnel during Strikes, Lockouts and other labor disputes, DOLE Memo dated October 1987 1. Obstructions on places and thoroughfares devoted to public use, such as the streets, sidewalks, alleys and the like are NUISANCES PER SE. A s such, they may be removed summarily the local government authorities, through their respective law enforcement autoritie, and they ma act independently of the DOLE even if said obstructions are played as a result of or in connection with a pending labor strike.
2. However, obstructions on points of ingress/egress within private
properties during labor dispute, although likewise prohibited by law, cannot be summarily demolished by la enforcement authorities. Instead these obstructions and barricades may be removed only in accordance with the proper orders issued by the DOLE Office of the Secretary, or the NLRC, with proper coordination between the said labor officials and the police authorities to ensure that no undue harm is inflicted upon any person and property.