PBM EMP. ORG. vs PBM CO. INC.

Facts: A mass demonstration at Malacaang in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig
police, to be participated in by the workers, the petitioners, in the first shift as well as those
in the regular second and third shifts and that they informed the Company of their proposed
demonstration. a meeting was called by the Company. The Management,informed PBMEO
that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union guaranteed by the Constitution
but emphasized, however, that any demonstration for that matter should not unduly
prejudice the normal operation of the Company. For which reason the Company warned the
PBMEO representatives that workers who belong to the first and regular shifts, who without
previous leave of absence approved by the Company, particularly, the officers present who
are the organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail to report for work the following
morning shall be dismissed, because such failure is a violation of the existing CBA and,
therefore, would be amounting to an illegal strike.

Because the petitioners and their members proceeded with the demonstration despite the
pleas of the Company that the first shift workers should not be required to participate in the
demonstration and that the workers in the second and third shifts should be utilized for the
demonstration, the Company prior notice of the mass demonstration, with the Court of
Industrial Relations, a charge against petitioners and other employees who composed the
first shift, charging them with a violation of No Strike, No Lockout Clause.

Issue: Is the Company guilty of Unfair Labor Practice?

Held: Yes. The respondent company is the one guilty of unfair labor practice. Because the
refusal on the part of the respondent firm to permit all its employees and workers to join the
mass demonstration against alleged police abuses and the subsequent separation of the eight
(8) petitioners from the service constituted an unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of
expression, freedom of assembly and freedom petition for redress of grievances, the
respondent firm committed an unfair labor practice defined in Section 4(a-1) in relation to
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 875, otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act. Section 3
of Republic Act No. 8 guarantees to the employees the right "to engage in concert activities
for ... mutual aid or protection"; while Section 4(a-1) regards as an unfair labor practice for
an employer interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise their rights
guaranteed in Section Three."

We repeat that the obvious purpose of the mass demonstration staged by the workers
of the respondent firm on March 4, 1969, was for their mutual aid and protection against
alleged police abuses, denial of which was interference with or restraint on the right of the
employees to engage in such common action to better shield themselves against such alleged
police indignities. The insistence on the part of the respondent firm that the workers for the
morning and regular shift should not participate in the mass demonstration, under pain of
dismissal, was as heretofore stated, "a potent means of inhibiting speech."

By: STO. TOMAS, Bay Ariel