FACTS : On October 24, 2000, the Union submitted
its Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiation proposals to the Hotel.
As negotiations ensued, the parties failed to arrive at mutually acceptable
terms and conditions. Due to the bargaining deadlock, the Union, on December 20, 2001,
filed a Notice of Strike on the ground of the bargaining deadlock with the
National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB)
Soon thereafter, in the afternoon of January
17, 2002, the Union held a general assembly at its office located in the Hotels
basement, where some members sported closely cropped hair or cleanly shaven
heads. The next day, or on January 18, 2002, more male Union members came to
work sporting the same hair style. The Hotel prevented these workers from
entering the premises claiming that they violated the Hotels Grooming
Standards.
In view of the Hotels action, the Union
staged a picket outside the Hotel premises. Later, other workers were also
prevented from entering the Hotel causing them to join the picket. For this
reason the Hotel experienced a severe lack of manpower which forced them to
temporarily cease operations in three restaurants
Subsequently, on January 20, 2002, the Hotel
issued notices to Union members, preventively suspending them and charging them
with the following offenses: (1) violation of the duty to bargain in good
faith; (2) illegal picket; (3) unfair labor practice; (4) violation of the
Hotels Grooming Standards; (5) illegal strike; and (6) commission of illegal
acts during the illegal strike. The next day, the Union filed with the NCMB a
second Notice of Strike on the ground of unfair labor practice and violation of
Article 248(a) of the Labor Code on illegal lockout, which was docketed as
NCMB-NCR-NS-01-019-02. In the meantime, the Union officers and members
submitted their explanations to the charges alleged by the Hotel, while they
continued to stage a picket just inside the Hotels compound
On January 26, 2002, the Hotel terminated the
services of twenty-nine (29) Union officers and sixty-one (61) members; and
suspended eighty-one (81) employees for 30 days, forty-eight (48) employees for
15 days, four (4) employees for 10 days, and three (3) employees for five days.
On the same day, the Union declared a strike. Starting that day, the Union
engaged in picketing the premises of the Hotel. During the picket, the Union
officials and members unlawfully blocked the ingress and egress of the Hotel
premises.
Consequently, on January 31, 2002, the Union
filed its third Notice of Strike with the NCMB which was docketed as
NCMB-NCR-NS-01-050-02, this time on the ground of unfair labor practice and
union-busting.
On the same day, the Secretary, through her
January 31, 2002 Order, assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and
certified the case to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration
Pursuant to the Secretarys Order, the Hotel,
on February 1, 2002, issued an Inter-Office Memorandum,[9] directing some of
the employees to return to work, while advising others not to do so, as they
were placed under payroll reinstatement.
Unhappy with the Secretarys January 31, 2002
Order, the Union moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied per the
Secretarys subsequent March 15, 2002 Order. Affronted by the Secretarys January
31, 2002 and March 15, 2002 Orders, the Union filed a Petition for Certiorari
with the CA
Meanwhile, after due proceedings, the NLRC
issued its October 9, 2002 Decision in NLRC NCR CC No. 000215-02, in which it
ordered the Hotel and the Union to execute a CBA within 30 days from the
receipt of the decision
The Union then filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the NLRCs Decision which was denied in the February 7, 2003
NLRC Resolution. Unfazed, the Union filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule
65 with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 76568, and assailed both the October
9, 2002 Decision and the February 7, 2003 Resolution of the NLRC.
ISSUE : WHETHER OR NOT THE UNION, THE 29
UNION OFFICERS AND 61 MEMBERS MAY BE ADJUDGED GUILTY OF STAGING AN ILLEGAL
STRIKE ON JANUARY 18, 2002 DESPITE RESPONDENTS ADMISSION THAT THEY PREVENTED
SAID OFFICERS AND MEMBERS FROM REPORTING FOR WORK FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE
HOTELS GROOMING STANDARDS
HELD : Art. 212(o) of the Labor Code defines
a strike as any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees
as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.
In Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. Workers
Association (TMPCWA) v. National Labor Relations Commission, we cited the
various categories of an illegal strike, to wit:
Noted authority on labor law, Ludwig Teller,
lists six (6) categories of an illegal strike, viz.:
(1)
[when it] is contrary to a specific prohibition of law, such as strike
by employees performing governmental functions; or
(2)
[when it] violates a specific requirement of law[, such as Article 263
of the Labor Code on the requisites of a valid strike]; or
(3)
[when it] is declared for an unlawful purpose, such as inducing the
employer to commit an unfair labor practice against non-union employees; or
(4)
[when it] employs unlawful means in the pursuit of its objective, such
as a widespread terrorism of non-strikers [for example, prohibited acts under
Art. 264(e) of the Labor Code]; or
(5)
[when it] is declared in violation of an existing injunction[, such as
injunction, prohibition, or order issued by the DOLE Secretary and the NLRC
under Art. 263 of the Labor Code]; or
(6)
[when it] is contrary to an existing agreement, such as a no-strike
clause or conclusive arbitration clause.[18]
With the foregoing parameters as guide and
the following grounds as basis, we hold that the Union is liable for conducting
an illegal strike for the following reasons
First, the Unions violation of the Hotels
Grooming Standards was clearly a deliberate and concerted action to undermine
the authority of and to embarrass the Hotel and was, therefore, not a protected
action. The appearances of the Hotel employees directly reflect the character
and well-being of the Hotel, being a five-star hotel that provides service to
top-notch clients. Being bald or having cropped hair per se does not evoke
negative or unpleasant feelings
Second, the Unions concerted action which
disrupted the Hotels operations clearly violated the CBAs No Strike, No Lockout
provision, which reads:
ARTICLE XXII NO STRIKE/WORK STOPPAGE AND
LOCKOUT
SECTION 1. No Strikes
The Union agrees that there shall be no
strikes, walkouts, stoppage or slow-down of work, boycott, refusal to handle
accounts, picketing, sit-down strikes, sympathy strikes or any other form of
interference and/or interruptions with any of the normal operations of the
HOTEL during the life of this Agreement.
The facts are clear that the strike arose out
of a bargaining deadlock in the CBA negotiations with the Hotel. The concerted
action is an economic strike upon which the afore-quoted no strike/work
stoppage and lockout prohibition is squarely applicable and legally binding
Third, the Union officers and members
concerted action to shave their heads and crop their hair not only violated the
Hotels Grooming Standards but also violated the Unions duty and responsibility
to bargain in good faith. By shaving their heads and cropping their hair, the
Union officers and members violated then Section 6, Rule XIII of the
Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code.
Fourth, the Union failed to observe the
mandatory 30-day cooling-off period and the seven-day strike ban before it
conducted the strike on January 18, 2002. The NLRC correctly held that the
Union failed to observe the mandatory periods before conducting or holding a
strike
Last, the Union committed illegal acts in the
conduct of its strike. The NLRC ruled that the strike was illegal since, as
shown by the pictures[21] presented by the Hotel, the Union officers and
members formed human barricades and obstructed the driveway of the Hotel.
Furthermore, this Court, not being a trier of
facts, finds no reason to alter or disturb the NLRC findings on this matter,
these findings being based on substantial evidence and affirmed by the CA.[22]
Factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise
in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not
only respect but even finality, and bind us when supported by substantial
evidence.[23] Likewise, we are not duty-bound to delve into the accuracy of the
factual findings of the NLRC in the absence of clear showing that these were
arrived at arbitrarily and/or bereft of any rational basis
Clearly, the 29 Union officers may be
dismissed pursuant to Art. 264(a), par. 3 of the Labor Code which imposes the
penalty of dismissal on any union officer who knowingly participates in an
illegal strike. We, however, are of the opinion that there is room for leniency
with respect to the Union members. It is pertinent to note that the Hotel was
able to prove before the NLRC that the strikers blocked the ingress to and
egress from the Hotel. But it is quite apparent that the Hotel failed to
specifically point out the participation of each of the Union members in the
commission of illegal acts during the picket and the strike. For this lapse in
judgment or diligence, we are constrained to reinstate the 61 Union member
No comments:
Post a Comment