INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V.

INSULAR LIFE
ASSURANCE CO., LTD.

GR. NO. L-25291

JANUARY 30, 1971

FACTS:

Petitioner entered into separate collective agreements with respondent while still being
members of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW). Atty. Enaje and Atty. Garcia, being one
of the officers of the union, tried to dissuade the unions from disaffiliating with the FFW and
joining the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU).

The parties of said union negotiated on the labor demands but with no satisfactory results
especially in terms of salary increases. This then resulted to a strike by the unions in protest
against said companies’ unfair labor practices. The strike happened on May 20, 1958 where
the unions picketed the offices of the Insular LIfe Building.

On the other hand, the acting manager and president of the company sent individual letters
to the striking employees urging the to stop their strike with a promise of free coffee,
movies, overtime pay, and accommodations; moreover, warning the strikes that if they fail
to return to work by a certain date, they will be reaplaced in their jobs.

Eventually, the employees called off their strike to return to their jobs, however, they were
first subjected to a screening process by the management committee of the company and
among the members were the two lawyers who were the former officers of the union. After
the screening, eighty-three strikers were rejected due to pending criminal charge; moreover
the company refused readmission of thirty-four officials and members of the unions who
were most active in the strike.

A complaint for unfair labor practice against the Companies was then filed by the CIR
prosecutor, specifically, for interfering with the members of the Unions in the exercise of
their right to concerted action; and discriminating against the members of the Unions as
regards readmission to work after the strike on the basis of their union membership and
degree of participation in the strike. After the trial, the Court of Industrial Relations
dismissed the Unions’ complaint for lack of merit.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the companies are guilty of unfair labor practice for discriminating against
the striking members of the unions in readmission of employees after the strike

HELD:

It should be noted that non-strikers who also had criminal charges pending against them in
the fiscal’s office were readily readmitted and were not required to secure clearances. This is
an act of discrimination practiced by the Companies in the process of rehiring and is
therefore a violation of Sec. 4(a)(4) of the Industrial Peace Act. Moreover, discrimination
exists where the record shows that the union activity of the rehired strikers has been less
prominent than that of the strikers who were denied reinstatement.