effect of illegal strike if done not in good faith, no reinstatement

7/26/2019 Effect of Illegal Strike if Done Not in Good Faith, No Reinstatement

1/4

Union Concerted Activities

Effect of Illegality of Strike

G.R. Nos. 86917-18 January 25, 1991

RELIANCE SURETY INSURANCE C!., INC. vs. NLRC an" RELIANCE SURETY

INSURANCE E#$L!YEES UNI!N.

SAR#IENT!, J.:

It appears that to avoid unnecessary loss of productive working time due to

personal and non-work-related conversations, personal telephone calls and non-

work-connected visits y personnel to other departments, the company effected a

change in the seating arrangement of its personnel in said department.

!our of those affected namely" Isagani #uio, #osalinda $acapagal, %lene $olina,and Severa Cansino protested the transfer of their tales and seats, claiming that

the change was without prior notice and was done merely to harass them as union

memers. &hen the manager insisted, a heated discussion ensued, during which

#uio and companions were alleged to have hurled unprintale insults 'sipsip,aliming, vacuum, etc.( to the manager and supervisors.

#uio, $acapagal, $olina and Cansino were asked to e)plain within *+ hours why

no disciplinary action should e taken against them for misconduct,

insuordination, and gross disrespect. he work atmosphere in the department had

allegedly ecome charged or tense as #uio continued to refuse to stay at hisdesignated place, and $olina and $acapagal still levelled insults to those who

testified against them. ence, #uio and companions were placed under preventive

suspension on !eruary /0+1 and ultimately dismissed after investigation on $arch /0+1.

2n 3 $arch /0+1, the union filed in ehalf of the said employees with the 45#C-

4#C 6ranch, $anila, against the company a complaint for illegal dismissal which it

suse7uently amended to include the charge of unfair laor practice.

he union claims that the company was guilty of unfair laor practice ecause it,

among others, effected transfer and changes in the seating arrangement topressure or intimidate union memers8 ecause it interfered in the union memers9

e)ercise of their right to self-organi:ation y forcing them to undertake overtime

work even on a non-working Saturday and in times when there were scheduled

union meetings to prevent them from attending the same" and ecause, thru itsmanager and assistant managers, it caused the resignation and withdrawal of union

memers from the union.


2/4

2n /; $arch /0+1, or while the complaint for illegal dismissal and U5< was

hiernating in the 4C# Aritration 6ranch, the union filed with the =25E a notice ofstrike predicated on unfair laor practices 'dismissal of union officers>memers,

discrimination and coercion on employees( allegedly committed y the company.

2n / $arch /0+1, the company received a copy of the notice of strike and atelegram from the =25E setting the notice of strike for initial conciliation conference

on /1 $arch /0+1 at ;"?? p.m. 6ut even efore the initial conference could takeplace, the union in the morning of /1 $arch /0+1 struck and picketed the company

premises y forming human arricades, which effectively ostructed the free

ingress to and egress from its premises, more particularly at the loy of the +th

floor of the uilding where it has its office, therey preventing its officials andemployees from doing their usual duties.

6ecause of this new development, the company filed on / $arch /0+1 with the

45#C-4C# Aritration 6ranch, $anila, a petition to declare the strike illegal on the

grounds that the ? or /@ day cooling-off period was latantly defied8 that the legal

re7uirement to furnish the department with the results of the strike vote at least 1days efore the strike was ignored8 ust as the ;*-hour period within which 65# or

the #egional 2ffice should e furnished with a written notice of the meeting to

declare a strike was also not complied with.

Charged, together with the union and its memers, in the petition to declare thestrike illegal were the following officers" #olando ugade, president8 Boseph Aying,

vice-president8 Isagani #uio, treasurer8 $s. %lene $olina and $s. #osalinda

$acapagal, secretaries8 !roilan %arcia and $s. 5u: $onroy, Sgts. at arms" 2rlando

Calma, auditor8 and $anolo ue, pro, who, the company claims, should e divestedof their employment status for having knowingly participated in the illegal strike

and in the commission of illegal acts.

he 5aor Ariter found the strike to e illegal, a finding the 4ational 5aor

#elations Commission, on appeal, affirmed. owever, the Commission held"

owever, while we are convinced that the strike is illegal, we are e7uallyconvinced that it should not e visited with the conse7uence so harsh as the

supreme penalty of dismissal, where merely reinstating them 'strikers(

without ackwages would suffice in view of the union9s elief, in proceeding

with strike, that the company was committing unfair laor practice interminating the services of some of its officers and memers. In ustifying

the imposition of a penalty lesser than dismissal even in cases involving

strikes tainted with illegality, the Supreme Court in the case of Almira vs.

B.F. Goodrich Phils., Inc., @+ SC#A /;? ruled"

It would imply at the very least that where a penalty less punitivewould suffice, whatever missteps may e committed y laor ought

not to e visited with a conse7uence so severe. It is not only ecause

of the law9s concern for the workingman. here is, in addition, as

family to consider. Unemployment rings untold hardships and sorrows


3/4

on those depending on the wage-earner. he misery and pain

attendant on the loss of os then could e avoided.

In other words, under the circumstances otaining in this case, we find itmore in keeping with ustice and e7uity if the striking union officers are

reinstated, instead of eing dismissed, to their former positions without lossof seniority rights ut without ackwages to serve as penalty for their

indiscretion in launching an illegal strike.

he Commission then disposed as follows"

&E#E!2#E, under the premises, the decision appealed from is herey

A!!I#$E=, suect to the modification that all the striking officers of the

appellant union should e reinstated to their former positions without loss of

seniority rights ut without ackwages.

&hether or not strikers who have een found to have staged an illegal strike may

e reinstated to work. D 4o.

here is no dispute that the strike in 7uestion was illegal, for failure of the striking

personnel to oserve legal strike re7uirements, to wit" '/( as to the fifteen-daynotice8 ';( as to the two-thirds re7uired vote to strike done y secret allot8 '( as

to sumission of the strike vote to the =25E at least seven days prior to the strike.

As found likewise y the Commission, in the course of the strike held on April /,

/0+1, certain strikers harassed non-striking employees, called company officers

names, and committed acts of violence 'as a result of which, criminal charges wererought with the fiscal9s office.(

here is no 7uestion, finally, that the strike itself was prompted y no actual,

e)isting unfair laor practice committed y the company. In effecting a change in

the seating arrangement in the office of the underwriting department, the company

merely e)ercised a reasonale prerogative employees could not validly 7uestion,

much less assail as an act of unfair laor practice. he Court is indeed at a loss howrearranging furniture, as it were, can ustify a four-month-long strike. As to the

union9s charges of harassment, the Commission found none, and as a general rule,

we are ound y its findings of fact.

Amid this ackground, the Court must grant the petition. In staging the strike in

7uestion, a strike that was illegal in more ways than one, the reinstated union


4/4

officers were clearly in ad faith, and to reinstate them without, indeed, loss of

seniority rights, is to reward them for an act pulic policy does not sanction.

he Union can not find sanctuary in the cases of Ferrer v. Court of IndustrialRelations and Almira v. BF Goodrich Philippines, Inc., in which we affirmed

reinstatement in spite of an illegal strike. In the first place, neither Ferrer norAlmirainvolved an illegal strike. &hat was involved in Ferrerwas a defective strike,

that is, one conducted in violation of the thirty-day cooling-off9 period, ut onecarried out in good faith to offset what petitioners were warranted in elieving in

good faith to e unfair laor practices Fcommitted yG $anagement. &hatAlmira

on the other hand declared was that a violent strike alone does not make the action

illegal, which would ustify the dismissal of strikers. It is therefore clear that weordered reinstatement in oth cases not in spite of the illegality of the strike ut on

the contrary, ecause the same was legal, that is to say, carried out in good faith.

Can not apply, either, the ruling in Bacus v. Ople,where we held that the mere

finding of illegality attending a strike does not ustify the wholesale dismissal of

strikers who were otherwise impressed with good faith.

he Court must not e understood to e aandoning the teachings of either Ferrer,

Almira,or Bacus. he Court reiterates that good faith is still a valid defense against

claims of illegality of a strike. &e do find, however, not a semlance of good faith

here, ut rather, plain arrogance, pride, and cynicism of certain workers.

effect of illegal strike if done not in good faith, no reinstatement

Documents