GR 140992; (March, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140992 , March 25, 2004
SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA SULPICIO LINES, INC.NAFLU, ET AL., petitioners, vs. SULPICIO LINES, INC., respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner union and respondent company executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective from 1990 to 1995. Negotiations for the CBA’s economic provisions, which began in 1993, reached a deadlock. On March 1, 1994, the union filed a notice of strike for collective bargaining deadlock. On March 23, 1994, the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and issued an order enjoining any strike. Subsequently, on May 20, 1994, the union filed a second notice of strike alleging unfair labor practices. That same day, union officers and members staged a work stoppage and gathered at the company’s pier.
In response, the Labor Secretary issued another order directing the strikers to return to work and certified the dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. The company also filed a complaint to declare the strike illegal and to terminate the participating union officers. The NLRC declared the strike illegal and authorized the dismissal of the union officers. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the strike staged by the union officers and members on May 20, 1994, was illegal.
RULING
Yes, the strike was illegal. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on the union’s failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements and its defiance of a valid assumption order. First, the strike was staged in clear violation of the Secretary of Labor’s March 23, 1994, order which expressly enjoined any strike or lockout after assuming jurisdiction over the initial bargaining deadlock. A strike undertaken despite such an order is patently illegal.
Second, even assuming the second notice of strike was based on unfair labor practices, the union failed to observe the cooling-off period and the requirement to conduct a strike vote reported to the Department of Labor and Employment. The law mandates these steps to ensure strikes are last resorts. The union’s immediate work stoppage on the same day it filed its second notice bypassed these essential procedural safeguards. Consequently, the strike was illegal for both substantive defiance of the assumption order and procedural infirmities. As the union officers knowingly participated in this illegal strike, their dismissal was a valid exercise of management prerogative under Article 264(a) of the Labor Code. The NLRC properly exercised jurisdiction over the legality of the strike as an incident of the certified dispute.