G.R. No. 91980 ; June 27, 1991
ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA (IBM), petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (First Division), HON. CARMEN TALUSAN and SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM), a union representing employees of San Miguel Corporation (SMC), demanded a correction of alleged wage distortions caused by Republic Act No. 6727 (Wage Rationalization Act). The union invoked Section 4(d) of the law, which provides a mechanism for resolving such disputes. When SMC rejected the union’s proposals, the union members, starting October 16, 1989, unilaterally decided to refuse overtime work and strictly adhere to an eight-hour work shift at the Polo Brewery plant. This action abandoned a long-standing work schedule of 10 to 14 hours per shift, which had been in place for about five years and was a source of steady extra income for the workers.
This concerted refusal to work beyond eight hours caused significant production losses for SMC. The company filed a complaint with the NLRC to declare the action an illegal slowdown. The NLRC’s First Division, upon ex parte presentation of evidence by SMC, issued a 20-day temporary restraining order (TRO) directing the union members to cease and desist from not complying with the established work schedule. The union challenged the TRO’s issuance, arguing it violated due process and that the workers were merely exercising their right to refuse overtime under the eight-hour labor law.

ISSUE

Whether the concerted refusal of union members to work overtime, by reverting to a strict eight-hour shift, constitutes an illegal slowdown or strike justifying the issuance of a restraining order by the NLRC.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled against the union and upheld the authority of the NLRC to issue injunctive relief. The Court held that the union members’ concerted action was an illegal slowdown, not a legitimate exercise of the right to refuse overtime. While the Labor Code allows an employee to refuse overtime work, this right is individual in nature. The coordinated and collective refusal by the union members, done to pressure the company to accede to their wage distortion demands, transformed the act into a concerted activity amounting to a strike or slowdown, which requires notice and compliance with statutory requisites. Since the union did not file a notice of strike, the action was illegal.
The Court further found that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the TRO. The NLRC followed proper procedure by first directing the reception of ex parte evidence due to the urgency of preventing imminent and substantial loss to the company. The TRO, having a limited 20-day lifespan, was a proper provisional remedy. The Court remanded the case to the NLRC with instructions to resolve the application for a permanent injunction in accordance with its findings that the slowdown was illegal. The petition was denied, and SMC’s counter-petition was granted.