Jackbilt Industries Inc. vs.

Jackbilt Employees Workers Union Facts: Petitioner decided to temporarily stop its business of producing concrete hollow blocks, compelling most of its employees to go on leave for six months. Respondent protested the temporary shutdown. Because its collective bargaining agreement with petitioner was expiring during the period of the shutdown, respondent claimed that petitioner halted production to avoid its duty to bargain collectively. The shutdown was allegedly motivated by anti-union sentiments. Respondent went on strike. ts officers and members picketed petitioner!s main gates and deliberately prevented persons and vehicles from going into and out of the compound. The "#R$ issued a TR% and n&unction in favor of the petitioner since it was found that 'nion members, on various occasions, stopped and inspected private vehicles entering and exiting petitioner!s production facility. Petitioner sent individual memoranda to the officers and members of respondent who participated in the strike ordering them to explain why they should not be dismissed for committing illegal acts in the course of a strike. (owever, respondent repeatedly ignored petitioner!s memoranda despite the extensions granted. Thus, on )ay *+, ,--., petitioner dismissed the concerned officers and members and barred them from entering its premises effective /une ,, ,--.. The #abor 0rbiter found the dismissal of the union officers and members is illegal. Issue: 1hether the filing of a petition with the labor arbiter to declare a strike illegal is a condition sine 2ua non for the valid termination of employees who commit an illegal act in the course of such strike. Held: The use of unlawful means in the course of a strike renders such strike illegal. Therefore, pursuant to the principle of conclusiveness of &udgment, the )arch -, ,--. strike was ipso facto illegal. The filing of a petition to declare the strike illegal was thus unnecessary. $onse2uently, we uphold the legality of the dismissal of respondent!s officers and employees. 0rticle 345 of the #abor $ode further provides that an employer may terminate employees found to have committed illegal acts in the course of a strike. Petitioner clearly had the legal right to terminate respondent!s officers and employees.

Industrial Timber vs. NL ! Facts: 6ometime in ,-.-, T$ decided to permanently stop and close its veneer production at its Butuan #ogs Plant 7due to impending heavy financial losses resulting from high production costs, erratic supply of raw materials and depressed prices and market conditions for its wood products.8 0ccordingly, on "ovember -, ,-.-, T$ served a written notice to all its employees in the said plant and to the Butuan 9istrict %ffice of the 9epartment of #abor and :mployment ;9%#:< stating that effective 9ecember ,+, ,-.- or thirty ;*+< days thereafter, it would cease operations at said plant. $onciliation proceedings were conducted at the 9%#: 9istrict %ffice pursuant to the provisions of the $ollective Bargaining 0greement ;$B0< on grievances. The parties, however, failed to settle their differences. T$ formally notified the 'nion in a letter addressed to %scar )onteroso, 'nion president, of the availability for release of separation pay and other $B0 benefits consisting of the monetary value of unused vacation and sick leave credits, house repair benefits and the mandatory ,*th month pay. %nly sixty-three ;4*< employees availed of the foregoing and subse2uently received said separation pay and other $B0 benefits. 'nion filed a notice of strike with the "ational $onciliation and )ediation Board which conducted a conciliation meeting. 0gain, conciliation failed. %n 9ecember ,=, ,-.-, the 'nion conducted a strike vote. 6ixty-two ;43< of the one hundred seventy-three ;,=*< members voted in favor of staging a strike.

0 complaint for illegal shutdown against T$ was filed by the 'nion in representation of its members with the 6ub-Regional 0rbitration Branch of the "ational #abor Relations $ommission ;"#R$< at Butuan $ity. T$ for its part filed a complaint for illegal strike. 6ub-Regional 0rbitration Branch of the "ational #abor Relations $ommission ;"#R$< at Butuan $ity, dismissed the complaint for illegal shutdown. The union appealed the decision with the "#R$, which reversed the prior decision. Issue"s: ;a< 1hether or not petitioner T$ is guilty of illegal shutdown of its Butuan #ogs Plant> ;b< 1hether or not respondent 'nion and its members are guilty of staging an illegal strike. Held: ;0< 0RT. 3.*. $losure of establishment and reduction of personnel.- The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the )inistry of #abor and :mployment at least one ;,< month before the intended date thereof. n case of termination due to the installation of labor saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay e2uivalent to at least his one ;,< month pay or to at least one ;,< month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. n case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be e2uivalent to one ;,< month pay or at least one-half ;,?3< month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. 0 fraction of at least six ;4< months shall be considered as one ;,< whole year. The foregoing article clearly provides inter alia that the employer may terminate the employment of his employees to prevent losses. $losure or cessation of operations for economic reasons is, therefore, recogni@ed as a valid exercise of management prerogative. The determination to cease operations is a prerogative of management which the 6tate does not usually interfere with, as no business or undertaking must be re2uired to continue operating at a loss simply because it has to maintain its workers in employment. 6uch an act would be tantamount to a taking of property without due process of law.A.B (owever, the burden of proving that such closure is bona fide falls upon the employer. n this case, petitioner corporation presented the analysis of an independent certified public accountant,A-B showing in detail the imminent losses it would suffer should it continue its operations. t is understandable that no audited financial statements or other similar documents were presented as the company is claiming impending future losses, not past or actual ones. )oreover, the fact that Petitioner $ompany has ceased operations and has not resumed to do so only reinforce its claim to a valid closure, not to mention the other established fact that its 6tanply Plant has also the capacity and capability to produce veneer, the product it solely manufactured in its now closed plant. 0t any rate, we held in a recent case that an employer may close or cease his business operations even if he were not suffering from business losses or financial reverses ;B< t cannot agree to the contention of the 'nion that the ma&ority of its members voted Cyes! to the strike. t must be borne in mind that there was ,=. union members at the time the plant was still operating. The fact that more than 4+ of them opted to receive separation benefits did not automatically sever their employee-employer relationship. 1hile this is a legal nicety, it is undisputed that the 'nion itself recogni@e this legal propositions, as it in fact seeks the reinstatement of all its members. n other words, the 'nion contending that the shutdown was illegal and that its members were illegally dismissed cannot now say that the more than 4+ members were legally dismissed. t cannot have its cake and eat it too. t cannot say that in the illegal shutdown case, its members were illegally dismissed but in the illegal strike case maintain that they were legally dismissed so as to cause the non-appreciation of their votes or non-voting. This intransigence and illogical culpability which is self-serving cannot be tolerated by this Branch. n fine, consistency must be upheld in all the legal ramifications of these cases and conse2uently, this Branch finds that no ma&ority vote as demanded by the law was obtained. ,=. members divided by 3 plus e2uals .- and this is the number which is the necessary ma&ority to give legality to the strike. This Branch also take note of the fact that this inconsistent stand is also displayed by the 'nion in its notion of a Cstrike!. 0fter undergoing the rigorous formalities of a strike and defending its legality, it suddenly contradicts itself by saying it did not strike. This Branch cannot fathom nor countenance this legal Csomersaults.!

#t. #c$olastica vs. Torres Facts: The 'nion and $ollege initiated negotiations for a first ever $B0 which resulted in a deadlock and prompted the union to file a notice of strike with the 9%#:. 'nion declared a strike which paraly@ed the operations of the $ollege and public respondent 6ec. of #abor immediately assumed &urisdiction over the labor dispute. nstead of returning to work, the union filed a motion for reconsideration of the return to work order. The college sent individual letters to the striking employees re2uiring them to return to work. n response union presented demands, the most important of which is the unconditional acceptance back to work of the striking employees. But these were re&ected. 6ec. of #abor denied the motion for reconsideration for his return to work order and sternly warned striking employees to comply with its terms. $onciliation meetings were held but this proved futile as the college remained steadfast in its position that any return to work order should be unconditional. The $ollege manifested to respondent 6ec. that the union continued to defy his return to work order. The $ollege sent termination letters to individual strikers and filed a complaint for illegal strike against the union. The union moved for the enforcement of the return to work order before the 6ec. The 6ec. issued an order directing reinstatement of striking union members and holding union officers responsible for the violation of the return to work order and were correspondingly terminated. Both parties moved for the partial consideration of the return to work order. Issue: 1hether the striking union members who were terminated for abandonment of work after failing to comply with the return to work order of 6ec. of labor can be reinstated.

Held:
The #abor $ode provides that if a strike has already taken place at the time of assumption, all striking employees should immediately return to work. This means that a return to work order is immediately effective and executory, notwithstanding the filing of a motion for reconsideration. t must be strictly complied with even during the pendency of any petition 2uestioning its validity. 0fter all, the assumption and?or certification order issued in the exercise of the 6ec.!s compulsive power of arbitration and until set aside, must therefore be complied with immediately. The college correspondingly had every right to terminate the services of those who chose to disregard the return to work order issued by the 6ec. of #abor in order to protect the interest of the students who form part of the youth of the land

Toyota %otor &$ilippines !orporation vs. Toyota %otor &$ilippines !orporation Workers 'ssociation Facts: n )ay 3+++, )ediator-0rbiter )a. Dosima #ameyra issued an order certifying Toyota )otor Philippines $orporation 1orkers 0ssociation as the exclusive bargaining agent of all Toyota rank-and-file employees. Toyota filed a motion for reconsideration assailing the said order. #ameyra denied the motion and Toyota eventually appealed the order before the 9%#: 6ecretary. )eanwhile, the 'nion submitted its collective bargaining agreement ;$B0< proposals to Toyota but the latter refused to bargain pending its appeal before the 9%#: 6ecretary. The 'nion then filed a notice of strike with the "ational $onciliation and )ediation Board ;"$)B<. The "$)B converted the notice of strike to a preventive mediation considering that the 9%#: 6ecretary was yet to decide on Toyota!s appeal. n relation to Toyota!s appeal, the parties were invited to a hearing. 'nion members were not allowed to attend the hearing as they were aptly represented by the 'nion. But despite this, many 'nion members and officers failed to render overtime and work on the following day which caused Toyota to lose PE*,.5-,--,.++. The union members went to the hearing and assembled before the Bureau of #abor Relations.

6ubse2uently, Toyota terminated 33= employees. The terminated employees allegedly abandoned their work. This resulted to another rally within Toyota!s premises as the strikers barricaded the entrances of Toyota preventing nonstrikers from going to work. n 0pril 3++,, the 9%#: 6ecretary assumed &urisdiction over the labor dispute and issued a return-to-work order. The 'nion ended its strike in the same month. (owever, in )ay and /une 3++,, union members still conducted rallies and pickets. Issue: 1hether or not the strikes conducted by the 'nion on different occasions are illegal. Held: Fes. The strike conducted before the B#R as well as the strike conducted when the 33= employees were terminated is illegal because both did not go through the proper procedure re2uired by the #abor $ode. t cannot be said that the strike conducted before the B#R is beyond the ambit of the strikes contemplated in the #abor $ode. The 'nion argues that the 7strike8 is actually a protest directed against the government and is covered by their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. The 6$ disagreed with this argument because the 'nion failed to provide evidence that the )ediator-0rbiter was biased against them. Gurther, if this were the kind of protest they were claiming, they should have secured a rally permit. Gurther still, this case involves a labor dispute. The employees may shroud their 7strike8 as mere demonstrations covered by the constitution but in reality these are temporary work stoppages. The strikes conducted after the 9%#: 6ecretary assumed &urisdiction over the labor dispute are illegal for they violated the return-to-work order. The 6upreme $ourt also cited the 4 categories of illegal strikes which areH ,. 1hen it is contrary to a specific prohibition of law, such as strike by employees performing governmental functions> or 3. 1hen it violates a specific re2uirement of law, Asuch as 0rticle 34* of the #abor $ode on the re2uisites of a valid strikeB> or *. 1hen it is declared for an unlawful purpose, such as inducing the employer to commit an unfair labor practice against nonunion employees> or 5. 1hen it employs unlawful means in the pursuit of its ob&ective, such as a widespread terrorism of non-strikers Afor example, prohibited acts under 0rt. 345;e< of the #abor $odeB> or E. 1hen it is declared in violation of an existing in&unction, Asuch as in&unction, prohibition, or order issued by the 9%#: 6ecretary and the "#R$ under 0rt. 34* of the #abor $odeB> or 4. 1hen it is contrary to an existing agreement, such as a no-strike clause or conclusive arbitration clause.