G.R. No. L-25032 and L-25037-38 October 14, 1968
CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, petitioner, vs. CEMENT WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 7-ALU and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

On March 24, 1961, about 300 workers of Cebu Portland Cement Company (CEPOC), members of the Cement Workers Union, Local 7-ALU (Union), staged a strike. The alleged cause was CEPOC’s refusal to incorporate a provision for a monthly agency fee from non-union members into the renewed collective bargaining agreement. The strike was certified to the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) and docketed as Case No. 35-IPA. Concurrently, the Union filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) case against CEPOC for refusal to bargain (Case No. 276-ULP-Cebu), and CEPOC filed a ULP case against the Union for staging an illegal strike involving violence (Case No. 278-ULP-Cebu). A return-to-work order was issued. In a single decision on November 6, 1964, the CIR declared the strike illegal and dismissed the mutual ULP charges. However, the CIR found CEPOC guilty of discrimination against union members: (1) in assigning work on Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; (2) in shift assignments affecting night differential pay; and (3) in the appointment of six union members (Dionisio Lapitan, Ponciano Mabatid, Vicente Siarza, Sabino Canillo, Fructuoso Gil, and Pedro Sanchez) to permanent positions with a lower salary range following a reclassification by the Wage and Position Classification Office (WAPCO). The CIR also found CEPOC’s memorandum of April 4, 1961, requiring employees to take three days of sick/vacation leave monthly, violated the return-to-work order. CEPOC was ordered to pay corresponding wage differentials and restore accumulated leaves. CEPOC’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CIR’s findings of discrimination in work assignment on weekends/holidays and in shift assignments are supported by substantial evidence.
2. Whether the CIR’s findings of discrimination in the appointment of the six union members to permanent positions are supported by substantial evidence.
3. Whether management has the power to compel employees to take vacation/sick leaves based on financial circumstances.
4. Whether the CIR gravely abused its discretion in not ordering the dismissal of workers who actively participated in the illegal strike.

RULING

1. On work and shift assignment discrimination: The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s findings. The Court held that the issue was not the propriety of CEPOC’s rotation measure due to financial reasons but whether in its execution, union members were discriminated against. The CIR found that non-strikers were allowed to work on weekends/holidays and given night shift assignments (entitling them to extra pay), while most strikers were denied these opportunities. CEPOC failed to cite any record evidence to disprove this finding of discrimination, which was based on substantial evidence. The CIR’s factual conclusions are thus respected.
2. On appointment discrimination: The Supreme Court reversed the CIR’s finding. The six union members, originally Mixed Control Chemists, were reclassified by WAPCO (an independent body) based on job descriptions submitted by the employees themselves. Their positions were classified as Senior Chemical Laboratory Technician (Range 27), while two non-union members in similar roles were classified to Range 33. The CIR inferred discrimination, suggesting plant superiors advised non-union members on their job descriptions. The Supreme Court ruled this inference lacked substantial evidentiary support, as there was no direct proof CEPOC influenced the classification or appointments. The finding was based on mere conjecture.
3. On compulsory leaves: The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s ruling against CEPOC. The memorandum forcing leaves was issued after the labor dispute was pending and the return-to-work order was in effect. This act violated the order, which aimed to restore the status quo and prevent unilateral changes in employment terms during dispute resolution.
4. On dismissal of strikers: The Supreme Court held the CIR did not gravely abuse its discretion. While the strike was declared illegal, the CIR has discretion under Commonwealth Act No. 103 to determine appropriate disciplinary measures, considering the strike’s cause and surrounding circumstances. The Court cited precedent that not every illegal strike warrants mass dismissal, especially if the cause is not purely malicious. The Union’s failure to appeal the illegality declaration rendered it final.
MODIFICATION AND DISPOSITION: The decision is modified by absolving CEPOC from liability for salary differentials to the six employees (Lapitan, et al.) due to lack of evidence of discriminatory appointment. The decision is affirmed in all other respects. The cases are remanded to the CIR for compliance. Costs against CEPOC.