GR L 30410 30411; (June, 1972) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-30410-30411 June 30, 1972
EASTERN TEXTILE MILLS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and EASTERN TEXTILE WORKERS UNION (FFW), respondents.
FACTS
Eastern Textile Mills, Inc. and the Eastern Textile Workers Union (FFW) had a collective bargaining agreement containing a no-strike clause and a grievance procedure. In 1966, during negotiations for a new contract, the union declared a strike. The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) found the strike illegal, as it violated the no-strike clause, the grievance machinery, and the statutory cooling-off period, and was prosecuted with unlawful means.
The CIR trial judge found specific union officers and members guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered their suspension for three months. Upon the company’s motion for reconsideration, the CIR en banc deliberated. The Presiding Judge voted to dismiss the guilty employees, arguing the law mandated forfeiture of employment for such illegal strikes. Two other judges also voted for dismissal, but a fourth judge voted for suspension, creating a complex voting pattern.
ISSUE
Whether the CIR en banc resolution effectively ordered the dismissal of all striking employees or only a specific subset found to have committed illegal acts.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the CIR’s final order for reinstatement of most employees. The legal logic centered on interpreting the en banc vote. While the Presiding Judge’s opinion advocated for dismissal under the Industrial Peace Act, a careful parsing of the separate opinions revealed that only three judges constituted a majority for dismissal. Crucially, this majority consensus was limited to dismissing only fifteen specifically named individuals who were proven to have committed illegal acts during the strike.
The Court ruled that the votes of the other judges for dismissal did not encompass the entire striking union membership but were confined to this identified group. Therefore, the CIR’s subsequent order directing the reinstatement of the other dismissed employees, with back wages, was correct. The law’s policy was effectuated by penalizing only those directly responsible for the illegal conduct, not the entire body of strikers. The petition was dismissed.