GR 156292; (January, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156292 ; January 11, 2005
ME-SHURN CORPORATION AND SAMMY CHOU, petitioners, vs. ME-SHURN WORKERS UNION-FSM AND ROSALINA CRUZ, respondents.
FACTS
Me-Shurn Corporation’s rank-and-file employees organized the Me-Shurn Workers Union-FSM on June 7, 1998. Shortly thereafter, on June 17, 1998, the corporation placed all union-member employees on forced leave. The union filed a petition for certification election on June 23, 1998. In response, the corporation filed a comment on July 27, 1998, stating it would temporarily cease operations due to an alleged inability to meet export quotas. The company paid separation benefits to 342 employees in August 1998. Operations resumed in September 1998 after remaining union officers signed an agreement guaranteeing no further union organization. The union reorganized and filed complaints for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints, finding the closure justified by business losses and the acceptance of separation pay as a waiver. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, ruling the closure was a pretext to discourage unionism, constituting unfair labor practice, and awarded back wages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s ruling.
ISSUE
Whether the closure of Me-Shurn Corporation and the subsequent dismissal of its employees constituted an unfair labor practice, rendering the dismissals illegal.
RULING
Yes, the closure was an unfair labor practice, making the dismissals illegal. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the burden of proof for a valid closure under Article 283 of the Labor Code and the prohibition of unfair labor practices under Article 248. The employer must prove the closure was due to serious business losses or financial reverses. Here, the timing was highly suspect: the closure and mass forced leaves occurred merely ten days after the union’s organization and shortly before a certification election. The resumption of business barely a month later, contingent upon an anti-union agreement, further belied the claim of genuine financial necessity. This sequence of events established that the true motive was to interfere with and discourage the employees’ right to self-organization. Such acts constitute unfair labor practice. Consequently, the dismissal of employees under this pretext is illegal. The acceptance of separation pay does not constitute a waiver when the dismissal itself is illegal, as it stems from an act contrary to law and public policy. The awarded remedy of full back wages from the time compensation was withheld until the finality of the decision is proper.