G.R. No. 92009 February 17, 1993
MASTER IRON LABOR UNION (MILU), WILFREDO ABULENCIA, et al., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MASTER IRON WORKS AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Master Iron Labor Union (MILU) and Master Iron Works and Construction Corporation entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective December 1, 1986 to November 30, 1989. The CBA contained a no-strike, no-lockout provision. After the CBA signing, the Corporation subcontracted work usually done by its regular workers, including work outside the plant, causing regular workers to be scheduled on a rotation basis of only ten working days a month. MILU requested the implementation of the grievance procedure under the CBA, but the Corporation ignored it. On April 8, 1987, MILU filed a notice of strike. An agreement was reached through DOLE intervention for the Corporation to give back work to regular employees, but the Corporation continued hiring outside workers. When MILU president Wilfredo Abulencia insisted on doing his regular work, he was suspended for three days. Conciliation conferences were ignored by the Corporation. On July 9, 1987, MILU filed another notice of strike on grounds of CBA violation, discrimination, unreasonable suspension of union officials, and unreasonable refusal to entertain grievance. The strike commenced on July 24, 1987. On July 28, 1987, CAPCOM soldiers dispersed the picket lines and arrested picketers, though criminal charges were later dismissed. The Corporation filed a petition to declare the strike illegal. The strike was re-staged on September 7, 1987. On October 22, 1987, MILU, through its president, sent a letter offering to return to work. The Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal, ordered the cancellation of MILU’s registration, terminated the employment of individual petitioners, and awarded attorney’s fees. The NLRC affirmed the illegality of the strike and the termination of employment but deleted the order canceling MILU’s registration and the attorney’s fees award. MILU’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the strike staged by petitioners was illegal.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the strike was illegal. The Court found that the strike violated the no-strike provision of the CBA. The petitioners’ contention that the strike was legal due to non-economic reasons (unfair labor practice) was not sustained because the issue of unfair labor practice, specifically the alleged illegal subcontracting, was not resolved by the Labor Arbiter as it was dismissed due to the filing of a separate complaint. The Court held that the existence of a no-strike clause in the CBA renders a strike during its term illegal, regardless of the grounds, unless the strike is based on unfair labor practice. Since the unfair labor practice charge was not adjudicated, the strike could not be justified on that ground. The Court also noted the petitioners’ failure to exhaust the grievance procedure under the CBA before resorting to a strike. The NLRC’s decision declaring the strike illegal and terminating the employment of the individual petitioners was affirmed.