Professional Documents
Culture Documents
practice (ULP) and subsequently informed HSBC that it would exercise its
right to concerted action. The Union members started picketing during
breaktime.
The Union's concerted activities persisted for 11 months, notwithstanding
that both sides had meanwhile started the re-negotiation of the economic
provisions of their CBA. The continued concerted actions impelled HSBC to
suspend the negotiations.
On December 22, 1993, the Union's officers and members walked out and
gathered outside the premises of HSBC's offices on Ayala Avenue, Makati
and Ortigas Center, Pasig. According to HSBC, the Union members blocked
the entry and exit points of the bank premises, preventing the bank officers
from entering and/or leaving the premises. With this, HSBC filed its
complaint to declare the strike illegal. In the meantime, HSBC issued
return-to-work notices to the striking employees; however, only 25
employees complied and returned to work. Due to the continuing concerted
actions, HSBC terminated the individual petitioners.
Labor Arbiter (LA) Felipe P. Pati declared the 22 December 1993 strike
illegal for failure of the Union to file the notice of strike with the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE); to observe the cooling-off
period; and to submit the results of the strike vote to the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) pursuant to Article 263 of the
Labor Code. He concluded that because of the illegality of the strike the
Union members and officers were deemed to have lost their employment
status.
On appeal, the NLRC modified the ruling of LA Pati, and pronounced the
dismissal of 18 Union members unlawful for failure of HSBC to accord
procedural due process to them. NLRC considered that they have remained
silent spectators in the illegal strike and therefore, NLRC find the award of
separation pay to each of the 18 respondents equivalent to one-half (1/2)
month salary for every year of service as equitable and proper. The
petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration, but the NLRC denied their
motion.
On certiorari, the CA, through the assailed judgment of NLRC deleted the
award of indemnity, but ordered HSBC to pay backwages to the 18
employees On motion for reconsideration, the CA reiterated its judgment,
and denied HSBC's motion to delete the award of backwages.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners were illegally dismissed.
HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. As a general rule, the mere finding of the illegality
of the strike does not justify the wholesale termination of the strikers from
amounted to the interference of the right of the union members to selforganization and collective bargaining.
Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, it filed a
petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. However, pending
resolution of first case, CEPALCO and CESCO entered into another Contract
of Service, this time for the warehousing works of CEPALCO. The decision
of the LA and NLRC with regards to this contract is also the same with the
first case regarding the meter reading contract.
The CA found out that CESCO was a labor-only contractor as it had no
substantial capitalization, as well as tools, equipment, and machineries used
in the work contracted out by CEPALCO. As such, it stated that CESCO is
merely an agent of CEPALCO, and that the latter is still responsible to the
workers recruited by CESCO in the same manner and extent as if those
workers were directly employed by CEPALCO. However, Nonetheless, the
CA found that CEPALCO committed no ULP for lack of substantial evidence
to establish the same.
ISSUE: Whether or not CEPALCO was engaged in unfair labor practice.
HELD: NEGATIVE. Under Article 106 of the Labor Code, as amended,
labor-only contracting is an arrangement where the contractor, who does
not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment,
machineries, work premises, among others, supplies workers to an
employer and the workers recruited are performing activities which are
directly related to the principal business of such employer. Labor-only
contracting is considered as a form of ULP when the same is devised by the
employer to "interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization."
The Court agrees with the CA that CEPALCO was engaged in labor-only
contracting as its Contract for Meter-Reading Work and Contract of Service
to Perform Warehousing Works. To be specific, petitioners failed to show
that CESCO has substantial capital or investment which relates to the job,
work or service to be performed. As the CA aptly pointed out, the tools and
equipment utilized by CESCO in the meter-reading activities are owned by
CEPALCO, emphasizing the fact that CESCO has no basic equipment to
carry out the service contracted out by CEPALCO. No evidence has been
offered to establish that CESCO exercised control with respect to the
manner and methods of achieving the warehousing works, or that it
supervised the workers assigned to perform the same.
The foregoing findings notwithstanding, the Court, similar to the CA and the
labor tribunals, finds that CEPALCO's contracting arrangements with
CESCO did not amount to ULP. This is because respondent was not able to