PHILIPPINE MARINE OFFICERS GUILD V CIA.

MARITIMA


FACTS: On different dates in June, 1954 PMOG sent
separate letters to several shipping firms, including
MARITIMA, PHILSTEAM, and MADRIGAL, each letter
containing a set of demands, informing the addresses
that PMOG represented the deck officers and engineers
respectively employed by them, and requesting a
conference concerning said demands. A dispute
thereafter arose between PMOG and each of the
COMPANIES, and on July 17, 1954 PMOG filed with the
Conciliation Service of the Department of Labor notices
of its intention to be against MARITIMA and PHILSTEAM,
alleging refusal to bargain and other unspecified unfair
labor practices. The Conciliation Service called a
conference of the parties but no agreement was reached
by them. Another conference was set for August 17,
1954, at which MADRIGAL was also requested to be
present in view of the fact that PMOG had also filed a
strike notice against it.

On August 16, 1954 a day before the date set for the
second conference, MARITIMA concluded with another
labor union, the Marine Officers Association of the
Philippines (MOAP) a collective bargaining agreement
covering the Maritima officers and engineers.

On August 24, 1954 PHILSTEAM likewise entered into
an agreement with another labor union, the Cebu
Seaman's Association, Inc. (CSA). PMOG thereupon
declared a strike against the three COMPANIES and
pickets were placed

On January 18, 1955 the CIR issued a resolution
ordering the "strikers to return to work immediately upon
receipt of this order, and the respondent companies to
readmit them, which was not enforced due to an
injunction.

Subsequently, cases for ULP were filed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the conduct of a strike is legal?

HELD: No.

In this jurisdiction, should the Supreme Court adopt the
viewpoint that labor violence is a special category of
unlawfulness, to be suffered (except in extreme cases),
and to be overlooked in favor of efforts at settling the
underlying controversy giving rise to violence?
In cases not falling within the prohibition against strikes,
the legality or illegality of a strike depends first, upon the
purpose for which it is maintained, and, second, upon the
means employed in carrying it on. Thus, if the purpose
which the laborers intend to accomplish by means of a
strike is trivial, unreasonable, or unjust, or if in carrying on
the strike the strikers should commit violence or cause
injuries to persons or damage to property the strike,
although not prohibited by injunction, may be declared by
the court illegal with adverse consequences to the
strikers
Here we find that the majority opinion predicated the
illegality of the strike not merely on the infringement of
said agreement by the union but on the proven fact that,
in carrying out the strike, coercion, force, intimidation,
violation with physical injuries, sabotage and the use of
unnecessary and obscene language or epithets were
committed by top officials and members of the union in
an attempt to prevent arbitration and peaceful settlement
of labor disputes.
Under the circumstances, the CIR correctly held that the
PMOG strike against MARITIMA was illegal.

UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES vs. NLRC and
NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC.

FACTS: On June 22, 1988, the petitioner Union of the
Filipro Employees, the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent of all rank-and-file employees of Nestle Philippines,
(private respondent) filed a Notice of Strike at the DOLE
raising the issues of CBA deadlock and unfair labor
practice.

Private respondent assailed the legal personality of the
proponents of the said notice of strike to represent the
Nestle employees, before the NCMB. This
notwithstanding, the NCMB proceeded to invite the
parties to attend the conciliation meetings and to which
private respondent failed to attend contending that it will
deal only with a negotiating panel duly constituted and
mandated in accordance with the UFE Constitution and
By-laws.

Thereafter, Company terminated from employment all
UFE Union officers, and all the members of the
negotiating panel for instigating and knowingly
participating in a strike staged at the Makati, Alabang,
Cabuyao and Cagayan de Oro on September 11, 1987
without any notice of strike filed and a strike vote
obtained for the purpose.

The union filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. LA
upheld the validity of the dismissal; NLRC en banc
affirmed.

Subsequently, company concluded separate CBAs with
the general membership of the union at Cebu/Davao and
Cagayan de Oro units; Assailing the validity of these
agreements, the union filed a case of ULP against the
company with the NLRC-NCR Arbitration Branch Efforts
to resolve the dispute amicably were taken by the NCMB
but yielded negative result.

On October 28, 1988, Labor Secretary Franklin Drilon
certified to the NLRC the said dispute between the UFE
and Nestle, Philippines.. which reads as follows: xxx The
NLRC is further directed to call all the parties immediately
and resolve the CBA deadlock within twenty (20) days
from submission of the case for resolution. Second
Division of the NLRC promulgated a resolution granting
wage increase and other benefits to Nestles employees,
ruling on non-economic issues, as well as absolving the
private respondent of the Unfair Labor Practice charge.
Petitioner finds said resolution to be inadequate and
accordingly, does not agree therewith. It filed a motion for
reconsideration, denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the strike is illegal

HELD: Once an assumption/certification order is issued,
strikes are enjoined, or if one has already taken place, all
strikers shall immediately return to work.
A strike that is undertaken despite the issuance by the
Secretary of Labor of an assumption or certification order
becomes a prohibited activity and thus illegal, pursuant to
the second paragraph of Art. 264 of the Labor Code as
amended. The Union officers and members, as a result,
are deemed to have lost their employment status for
having knowingly participated in an illegal act.
1. The strike was staged in violation of the existing CBA
provisions on "No Strike/No Lockout Clause" stating that
a strike, which is in violation of the terms of the collective
bargaining statement, is illegal, especially when such
terms provide for conclusive arbitration clause

2. Instead of exhausting all the steps provided for in the
grievance machinery provided for in the collective
bargaining agreement to resolve the dispute amicably
and harmoniously within the plant level, UFE went on
strike

3. The prescribed mandatory cooling-off period and then
7-day strike and after submission of the report of strike
vote at Nestle's Makati Offices and Muntinlupa and
Cabuyao Plants were not complied with

4. In carrying out the strike, coercion, force, intimidation,
violence with physical injuries, sabotage, and the use of
unnecessary and obscene language or epithets were
committed by the respondent officials and members of
either UFE or WATU. It is well-settled that a strike
conducted in this manner is illegal

CALTEX REFINERY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (CREA) v.
BRILLANTES

FACTS: Anticipating the expiration of their Collective
Bargaining Agreement on July 31, 1995, petitioner and
private respondent negotiated the terms and conditions of
employment to be contained in a new CBA. The
negotiation between the two parties was participated in
by the National Conciliation and Meditation Board
(NCMB) and the Office of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment. Some items in the new CBA were amicably
arrived at and agreed upon, but some others were
unresolved.
To settle the unresolved issues, eight meetings
between the parties were conducted. Because the
parties failed to reach any significant progress in these
meetings, petitioner declared a deadlock. On July 24,
1995, petitioner filed a notice of strike. Six (6) conciliation
meetings conducted by the NCMB failed to settle the
parties differences. Then, the parties held marathon
meetings at the plant level, but this remedy proved also
unavailing.
During a strike vote on August 16, 1995, the
members of petitioner opted for a walkout. Private
respondent then filed with the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) a petition for assumption of
jurisdiction in accordance with Article 263 (g) of the Labor
Code.
In an Order dated August 22, 1995, public
respondent assumed jurisdiction over the entire labor
dispute at Caltex (Philippines) Inc.,
Accordingly, any strike or lockout, whether actual or
intended, is hereby enjoined.

In defiance of the above Order expressly restraining any
strike or lockout, petitioner began a strike and set up a
picket in the premises of private respondent on August
25, 1995. Thereafter, several company notices directing
the striking employees to return to work were issued, but
the members of petitioner defied them and continued
their mass action.

Because of the strike, private respondent terminated the
employment of some officers of petitioner union.


ISSUE: petitioner questions public respondents
resolution of five issues in the CBA, specifically on wage
increase, union security clause, retirement benefits or
application of the new retirement plan, signing bonus and
grievance and arbitration machineries.

HELD: Petitioner belittles the awarded increases. It
insists that the increase should be ruled on the basis of
four factors: (a) the economic needs of the [u]nions
members; (b) the [c]ompanys financial capacity; (c) the
bargaining history between the [u]nion and the
[c]ompany; and (d) the traditional parity in wages
between Caltex and Shell Refinery Employees.

Petitioner tries to show private respondents immense
financial capacity by citing Caltexs Banaba Housing
Up-grading which would cost not less
thanP200,000,000.00

Private respondents financial capacity has been
insufficiently explained in its Comment dated April 16,
1996 in which it stated that the Banaba upgrading
should not be construed as a yardstick of its financial
standing

Such upgrading should not be equated with private
respondents financial capacity to pay the proposed wage
increase, but should be evaluated as a business
judgment to survive and remain globally
competitive. We believe that the standard proof of a
companys financial standing is its financial statements
duly audited by independent and credible external
auditors.