CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILS.
, petitioner,
vs.
MARSMAN and CO., INC., and the COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.
MARSMAN and CO., INC IS A Company that had in its employ approximately 320 persons, about
140 of whom where members of MARCELA.
On December 23, 1953 the Industrial Court named MARCELA as the employees' bargaining agent
in regard to rates of pay, terms and conditions of employment.
On March 17, 1954 MARCELA-FFW submitted to the Company a set of proposals for collective
bargaining, which the Company answered on March 24, 1954. In spite of negotiations held between
the Company and the Union, they failed to reach In agreement;
On April 8, 1954 the Union, filed a notice of strike with the Department of Labor. Mediation by the
Conciliation Service of that Department proved fruitless.
On June 4, 1954 the Union declared a strike and at the same time placed a "round-the-clock" picket
line around the Company's premises in Intramuros, Manila.
The tense situation in the strike zone prompted the Manila Police Department to send policemen
thereto to preserve peace.
On July 30, 1954, in a conference called by Eleuterio Adevoso, then Secretary of Labor, the Union
officials and members then present were prevailed upon by Adevoso to accept the proposals of
Antonio de las Alas, Company vice-president, that they stop the strike and go back to work, and that
when they were already working the Company would discuss with them their demands. Upon being
informed to the Union's acceptance of the proposal the strikers returned to work.
The Company admitted back sixteen picketing strikers on August 9, 1954 and later on, it also
reemployed non-union employees and a majority of the strikers.
However, complainants herein (69) were refused admittance and were informed by Company
officials that they would not be reinstated unless they ceased to be active Union members
and that in any case the Company already had enough men for its business [Link] a
result the strike and the picketing were resumed.
During the strike, some of the picketers and some non-strikers were arrested within the strike zone
for having committed unlawful acts, and were duly charged therewith.
Initially the strike staged by the Union was meant to compel the Company to grant it certain
economic benefits set forth in its proposal for collective bargaining. The strike was an economic one,
But the strike changed its character from the time the Company refused to reinstate complainants
because of their union activities after it had offered to admit all the strikers and in fact did readmit the
others. It was then converted into an unfair labor practice strike.
The complaint of unfair labor practice filed in the Court of Industrial Relations was affirmed and the
company was ordered to reinstated 60 of the 69 laborers. Without backpay.
Both the Union and the Company appealed. The former claims that the 60 reinstated employees
should be granted backpay (G.R. No. L-17038) while the latter questions the Industrial Court's
finding of unfair labor practice (G.R. No. L-17057).
To this controversy, three issues were challenged by the company.
(1) it offered to reinstate all the strikers; Antonio Delas Alas was not authorized.
(2) the complainants made use of illegal acts
(3) the Company's refusal to reinstate complainants was for the purpose of discouraging
union activities.
Tp the first challenge the court said that the denial of the company is not worthy of belief.
First, because then De las Alas was an executive Vice-President while Amando Velilla was only the
Secretary of the Company; second, while respondent wants to impress this Court that Velilla's
authority to deal with the strikers was virtue of the Board resolution, such document was not
presented in Court and third not even De las Alas was presented to make the denial.
The Company alleges that it was economic reasons, i.e., its policy of retrenchment, not labor
discrimination, which prevented it from rehiring complainants. This is disproved, however, by the fact
that it not only readmitted the other strikers, but also hired new employees and even increased the
salaries of its personnel by almost 50%. We are convinced that it was not business exigency but a
desire to discourage union activities which prompted the Company to deny readmittance to
complainants. This is an indubitable case of unfair labor practice.
The Company further argues that since the methods used by the strikers were illegal, it had the right
to refuse them readmission. Of the 69 complainants, nine, were charged with and convicted of
various crimes like coercion, malicious mischief, physical injuries, breach of the peace, light threats,
and damage to property, all committed during the period from September 4, 1954 to October 12,
1954.
Admittedly, the Company could not have condoned these acts which were committed after it had
offered to reinstate the strikers. Nevertheless, as the lower court reasoned out, it does not appear
that the aforementioned individual acts were authorized or even impliedly sanctioned by the
Union. Hence, the other strikers who were innocent of and did not participate in the illegal
acts should not be punished by being deprived of their right of reinstatement. It is only those
who had been found guilty who should be penalized by the loss of the right. 3
We now come to the question of backpay. In an economic strike, the strikers are not entitled to
backpay, since the employer should get the equivalent day's work for what he pays his employees.
During the time that the strike was an economic one, complainants had no right to back pay.
On the other hand, even after the court has made a finding of unfair labor practice, it still has the
discretion to determine whether or not to grant back pay. Such discretion was not abused when it
denied back wages to complainants, considering the climate of violence which attended the strike
and picket that the complainants conducted. While the complainants ordered reinstated did
not actively take part in the acts of violence, their minatory attitude towards the Company may
be gathered from the fact that from the very first day of the strike policemen had to patrol the
strike zone in order to preserve peace.
WHEREFORE, in the case
CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILS., petitioner,
vs.
MARSMAN and CO., INC., and the COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,
the judgment appealed from is affirmed, without cost
