G.R. No. L-28607, May 31, 1971
Shell Oil Workers’ Union, petitioner, vs. Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd. and The Court of Industrial Relations, respondents.
FACTS
The Shell Company of the Philippines decided to contract out its security maintenance services, a move it had studied for years, which necessitated the transfer of eighteen security guards to other positions within the company. The company maintained it was motivated purely by economic reasons of sound management and had consulted the union throughout the process. It assured the guards that overtime and other benefits would be preserved in their new assignments and even offered them additional hourly pay and lump sum bonuses.
The Shell Oil Workers’ Union, however, declared a strike, believing this transfer violated the existing collective bargaining agreement. The union argued the move undermined the terms and conditions of employment secured by the agreement. The Court of Industrial Relations found that the company’s action was not anti-union, was based on legitimate economic grounds, and did not constitute a breach of the collective bargaining agreement. It thus ruled the strike was illegal.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the strike declared by the union, based on its belief that the transfer of security guards violated the collective bargaining agreement, should be deemed illegal despite a judicial finding that no technical breach of the agreement occurred.
RULING
Justice Barredo, in his concurring opinion, agreed with the main decision’s disposition but articulated a distinct legal logic. He concurred with the Industrial Court’s factual finding that the company’s transfer of guards was not a violation of the collective bargaining agreement and was devoid of anti-union animus. However, he diverged on the characterization of the strike’s legality.
Justice Barredo posited that the legality of a strike cannot be determined by “mere straight-jacketed legalistic argumentation.” He emphasized that the union’s strike votes were premised on a sincere and honest belief that their rights under the agreement were being infringed. Therefore, the subsequent judicial finding of no technical breach does not automatically stamp the strike with illegality. In his view, there is a significant difference between a strike that is legally justified and one that is merely “not illegal” due to the good faith of the participants.
Nonetheless, Justice Barredo fully concurred with the sanctions imposed by the main opinion, which individualized the responsibilities of the strikers. He stressed that even a strike not deemed illegal cannot excuse resort to violence, threats, or duress. Thus, the reinstatement of relatively innocent strikers was fair, while the approval of the lay-off for those who engaged in undue acts was sound policy. His concurrence ultimately balanced the protection of labor’s good-faith recourse to strike with the imperative of maintaining order and condemning violence in labor disputes.