FACTS : Prior to the expiration of the CBA or
sometime in February 1993, Allesandro G. Salazar,1 Vice-President-Human
Resources Department of respondent company, was approached by Nestor Ocampo,
the union president, and Hernando Clemente, a union director.
In March 1993, Ocampo and Clemente again
approached Salazar. They inquired once more about the CBA status and received
the same reply from Salazar. In April 1993, Ocampo requested for a meeting to
discuss the duration and effectivity of the CBA. Salazar acceded and a meeting
was held on 15 April 1993 where the union officers asked whether Salazar would
be amenable to make the new CBA effective for two (2) years, starting 01 August
1993. Salazar, however, declared that it would still be premature to discuss
the matter and that the company could not make a decision at the moment. The very
next day, or on 16 April 1993, all the rank-and-file employees of the company
refused to follow their regular two-shift work schedule of from 6:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m., and from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. At 2:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m.,
respectively, the employees stopped working and left their workplace without
sealing the containers and securing the raw materials they were working on.
When Salazar inquired about the reason for their refusal to follow their normal
work schedule, the employees told him to "ask the union officers." To
minimize the damage the overtime boycott was causing the company, Salazar
immediately asked for a meeting with the union officers. In the meeting, Enrico
Gonzales, a union director, told Salazar that the employees would only return
to their normal work schedule if the company would agree to their demands as to
the effectivity and duration of the new CBA. Salazar again told the union
officers that the matter could be better discussed during the formal
renegotiations of the CBA. Since the union was apparently unsatisfied with the
answer of the company, the overtime boycott continued. In addition, the
employees started to engage in a work slowdown campaign during the time they
were working, thus substantially delaying the production of the company
On 14 May 1993, petitioner union submitted
with respondent company its CBA proposal, and the latter filed its
counter-proposal.
On 03 September 1993, respondent company
filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a petition to declare
illegal petitioner union's "overtime boycott" and "work
slowdown" which, according to respondent company, amounted to illegal
strike. On 22 October 1993, respondent company filed with the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) an urgent request for preventive
mediation aimed to help the parties in their CBA negotiations.
On 24 January 1994, petitioner union filed
with the NCMB a Notice of Strike citing unfair labor practice allegedly
committed by respondent company. On 12 February 1994, the union staged a strike
On 14 February 1994, Secretary of Labor
Nieves Confesor issued an assumption order4 over the labor dispute. On 02 March
1994, Secretary Confesor issued an order directing respondent company to
"immediately accept all striking workers, including the fifty-three (53)
terminated union officers, shop stewards and union members back to work under
the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the strike, and to pay all
the unpaid accrued year end benefits of its employees in 1993
In the i, the case before Labor Arbiter Caday
continued. On 16 March 1994, petitioner union filed an "Urgent
Manifestation and Motion to Consolidate the Instant Case and to Suspend
Proceedings" seeking the consolidation of the case with the labor dispute
pending before the Secretary of Labor. Despite objection by respondent company,
Labor Arbiter Caday held in abeyance the proceedings before him. However, on 06
June 1994, Acting Labor Secretary Jose S. Brillantes, after finding that the
issues raised would require a formal hearing and the presentation of
evidentiary matters, directed Labor Arbiters Caday and M. Sol del Rosario to
proceed with the hearing of the cases before them and to thereafter submit
their report and recommendation to his office.
On 05 September 1995, Labor Arbiter Caday
submitted his recommendation to the then Secretary of Labor Leonardo A.
Quisumbing.
Petitioner union moved for the
reconsideration of the order but its motion was denied. The union went to the
Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari. n the now questioned decision
promulgated on 29 December 1999, the appellate court dismissed the petition.
The union's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied
ISSUE : WON CA committed grave abuse of
discretion
HELD : On the matter of the authority and
jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor and Employment to rule on the illegal
strike committed by petitioner union, it is undisputed that the petition to
declare the strike illegal before Labor Arbiter Caday was filed long before the
Secretary of Labor and Employment issued the assumption order on 14 February
1994. However, it cannot be denied that the issues of "overtime
boycott" and "work slowdown" amounting to illegal strike before
Labor Arbiter Caday are intertwined with the labor dispute before the Labor
Secretary
Anent the alleged misappreciation of the
evidence proffered by the parties, it is axiomatic that the factual findings of
the Labor Arbiter, when sufficiently supported by the evidence on record, must
be accorded due respect by the Supreme Court
The reliance on the parol evidence rule is
misplaced. In labor cases pending before the Commission or the Labor Arbiter,
the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not
controlling.15 Rules of procedure and evidence are not applied in a very rigid
and technical sense in labor cases.16 Hence, the Labor Arbiter is not precluded
from accepting and evaluating evidence other than, and even contrary to, what
is stated in the CBA
In any event, the parties stipulated:
Section 1. Regular
Working Hours — A normal workday shall consist of not more than eight (8)
hours. The regular working hours for the Company shall be from 7:30 A.M. to
4:30 P.M. The schedule of shift work shall be maintained; however the company
may change the prevailing work time at its discretion, should such change be
necessary in the operations of the Company. All employees shall observe such
rules as have been laid down by the company for the purpose of effecting
control over working hours.17
It is evident from the foregoing provision
that the working hours may be changed, at the discretion of the company, should
such change be necessary for its operations, and that the employees shall
observe such rules as have been laid down by the company.
More importantly, the "overtime
boycott" or "work slowdown" by the employees constituted a
violation of their CBA, which prohibits the union or employee, during the
existence of the CBA, to stage a strike or engage in slowdown or interruption
of work
Finally, the Court cannot agree with the
proposition that respondent company, in extending substantial separation
package to some officers of petitioner union during the pendency of this case,
in effect, condoned the illegal acts they committed.
Respondent company correctly postured that at
the time these union officers obtained their separation benefits, they were
still considered employees of the company. Hence, the company was merely
complying with its legal obligations.25 Respondent company could have withheld these
benefits pending the final resolution of this case. Yet, considering perhaps
the financial hardships experienced by its employees and the economic situation
prevailing, respondent company chose to let its employees avail of their
separation benefits. The Court views the gesture of respondent company as an
act of generosity for which it should not be punished
No comments:
Post a Comment