them to return to work none returned PINCOCO posted again a notice advising them to signify their ability to work & submit to police clearance & medical & physical exam PICEWO signified its intent to return to work but none of the strikers were allowed to work.
76. Toyota Motors 19 Oct 07
77. SSS vs. CA 175 SCRA 28 July 89 78. Samahan GR No. 119467 79. NSFW vs. Ovejera GR. 59743 31 May 82 80. Union vs. Nestle GR 88710-13 19 Dec 90 81. Union vs. NLRC GR 119293 June 03
82. Peoples Industrial and Commercial
Employees & Wokers Org vs Peoples Industrial and Commercial Corp (PINCOCO) G.R. No. 37657 15 March 1982 in the absence of enforceable provisions in the federations consti preventing disaffiliation of a local union, a local may sever its relationship w/ its parent FACTS: After the termination of the agreement between FTLO and PINCOCO, an election of the Rizal Chapter of the FTLO was conducted. With the knowledge of ER PINCOCO individual petitioners were elected. The new officers & 51 other EEs executed a certification stating that they are members of FTLO, have changed the name of their union (to PICEWO Peoples Industrial & Commercial Employees Workers Org), have affiliated this new union with the FFW (Federation of Free Workers). Union counsel Atty Advincula was disauthorized to represent the signatories *contains no reason or cause for the change of union name Pagayatan, as chapter pres of FTLO & not as pres of PICEWO, notified in writing PINCOCO of their desire to terminate the working agreement replied that in time they will. Consequently, FTLO expelled petitioners on the ground of disloyalty & working for the interest of another labor federation. Pagayatan, this time as pres of PICEWO, filed a notice of strike on the ground of ERs refusal to bargain. FTLO demanded PINCOCO to dismiss petitioners by enforcing the maintenance of membership shop of the working
From there, arose 3 cases resolved by the CIR.
a. Art 2 of the working agreement required the maintenance of the membership in the federation as a condition for continued employment b. Cause for expulsion was 1 expressly stated in the agreement c. FTLO is the sole & EBR limitation to petitioners right to leave the union & join another No ULP & that the strike was not on account of any ULP ISSUE: WON petitioners act of disaffiliating from the mother federation constitutes an act of disloyalty to the union w/c would warrant their expulsion & consequently their dismissal from the company in pursuance to the union security clause in the CBA Petitioners contend that there was no disloyalty they merely changed the name of their union HELD: NO. Assailed decision is set aside. While the court is not convinced that they just changed their name (having registered the new union & affiliated it w/ a new federation FFW), petitioners do not dismissal. The validity of the dismissal pursuant to security clause of the CBA hinges on the validity of the disaffiliation of the local union from the federation. The right to withdraw from the federation depends on the CBL nothing shown in the records that the local union was expressly forbidden to disaffiliate from the federation but for the union security clause. But this is rebutted by the fact that 85% (51/60) of the union members decided to reorganize the union & to disaffiliate from the mother federation. No disloyalty since the federation & the union are 2 diff entities it was the federation that even actively initiated the dismissal of the petitioners.
New decision: reinstatement w/ back wages.
83. NATIONAL FEDERATION vs. NLRC GR
113466 15 Dec 07
84. ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA
(IBM) vs. NLRC G.R. No. 91980 27 June 1991 FACTS: Upon the effectivity of RA 6727, the union, Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (the Union) presented to San Miguel Corporation (SMC) a "demand" for correction of the significant distortion in the workers wage. However, the Union alleged that they were ignored. To compel SMC to correct the distortion in their wages brought about by the implementation of RA 6640 and RA 6727 to newly-hired employees, workers who are members of the Union refused to work beyond 8 hours everyday at the Polo Plant of SMC. SMC claimed that the abandonment of the longstanding schedule of work which the workers welcomed and encouraged before and the reversion to the 8-hour shift caused substantial losses to SMC. SMC filed an action to declare the strike or slowdown illegal in the NLRC. It contends that the coordinated reduction by the Union's members of the work time, willingly and consistently observed by them, causing financial losses to the employer in order to compel it to yield to the demand for correction of "wage distortions," is an illegal and "unprotected" activity. It is, SMC argues, contrary to the law and to the CBA. ISSUE: WON the strike or slowdown is illegal as it is contrary to law and to the CBA between SMC and the Union? HELD: YES. Strikes or slowdowns may be forbidden or restricted by law or contract. In the particular instance of "distortions of the wage structure within an establishment" resulting from "the application of any prescribed wage increase by virtue of a law or wage order," Section 3 of RA 6727 prescribes a specific, detailed and comprehensive procedure for the correction thereof, thereby implicitly excluding strikes or
lockouts or other concerted activities as modes of
settlement of the issue. Section 16, Chapter I of the IRR of R.A. 6727, after reiterating the policy that wage distortions be first settled voluntarily by the parties and eventually by compulsory arbitration, declares that, "Any issue involving wage distortion shall not be a ground for a strike/lockout." CBA prescribes a similar eschewal of strikes or other similar or related concerted activities as a mode of resolving disputes or controversies, generally, said agreement clearly stating that settlement of "all disputes, disagreements or controversies of any kind" should be achieved by the stipulated grievance procedure and ultimately by arbitration. The Union was thus prohibited to declare and hold a strike or otherwise engage in non-peaceful concerted activities for the settlement of its controversy with SMC in respect of wage distortions, or for that matter; any other issue "involving or relating to wages, hours of work, conditions of employment and/or employeremployee relations." The partial strike or concerted refusal by the Union members to follow the five-year-old work schedule which they had therefore been observing, resorted to as a means of coercing correction of "wage distortions," was therefore forbidden by law and contract and, on this account, illegal. Even if there were no such legal prohibition, and even assuming the controversy really did not involve the wage distortions caused by RA 6727, the activity in question would still be illicit because it is contrary to the workers' explicit contractual commitment "that there shall be no strikes, walkouts, stoppage or slowdown of work, boycotts, secondary boycotts, refusal to handle any merchandise, picketing, sit-down strikes of any kind, sympathetic or general strikes, or any other interference with any of the operations of the COMPANY during the term of CBA The legislative intent that solution of the problem of wage distortions shall be sought by voluntary negotiation or abitration, and not by strikes, lockouts, or other concerted activities of the employees or management, is made clear in the rules implementing RA 6727 issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment 12 pursuant to the authority granted by Section 13 of the Act. 13 Section 16, Chapter I of these implementing rules, after reiterating the policy that wage distortions be first settled voluntarily by the parties and eventually by compulsory arbitration, declares that, "Any issue involving wage distortion shall not be a ground for a strike/lockout."