G.R. Nos. L-15447-48; January 31, 1962
ALLIED WORKERS’ ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (AWA) SAN CARLOS CHAPTER, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLASLU), SINFOROSO KYAMKO and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

The San Carlos Milling Company had a collective bargaining and union shop agreement with petitioner Allied Workers’ Association (AWA). Sinforoso Kyamko, a long-time employee since 1948 and a former AWA member, joined the respondent Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union (PLASLU) and actively campaigned for it. Consequently, the AWA expelled Kyamko and requested the Company to dismiss him pursuant to their union shop agreement. The Company complied. This act, along with other alleged coercive warnings to employees against joining PLASLU, prompted PLASLU members to declare a strike on April 12, 1956. The strikers offered to return to work on April 27, 1956, but the Company refused reinstatement. PLASLU and Kyamko filed two unfair labor practice cases against the Company and the AWA with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR).
The CIR found the Company guilty of unfair labor practice. It ordered the reinstatement of the striking workers with back wages, except for a few individuals dismissed for separate causes. The CIR held that Kyamko’s dismissal was illegal and the subsequent strike was justified. The AWA appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issue was whether the dismissal of Sinforoso Kyamko under the union shop agreement and the subsequent refusal to reinstate the strikers constituted unfair labor practice, thereby rendering the strike legal and entitling the workers to reinstatement with back wages.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s decision, as modified by its own prior final and executory ruling in a related case (G.R. Nos. L-15453 and L-15723). The Court held that the union shop agreement’s dismissal provision applied only to new employees hired under that agreement. Kyamko, an employee since 1948, was an old employee; therefore, his dismissal for leaving the AWA and joining PLASLU was not authorized by the contract. His dismissal was, in legal effect, an unfair labor practice act motivated by his union affiliation and activities with PLASLU.
Consequently, the strike declared on April 12, 1956, was legally justified as a response to this unfair labor practice. The Company’s subsequent refusal to readmit the strikers on April 27, 1956, was likewise unlawful. The union shop agreement could not bar the reinstatement of workers who struck against an unfair labor practice. However, recognizing the Company’s arguable good-faith reliance on the union shop agreement, the Supreme Court, in its prior related decision, had equitably reduced the award of back wages to one-half, covering the period from the offer to return to work until actual reinstatement. Applying this settled doctrine, the Court affirmed the appealed CIR decision with the same modification on back wages.