GR L 18461; (February, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18461 February 10, 1967
NORTON & HARRISON CO. & JACKBILT CONCRETE BLOCKS CO. LABOR UNION (NLU), petitioner, vs. NORTON & HARRISON CO. & JACKBILT CONCRETE BLOCKS CO., INC. and ALBERTO GOLDEN, respondents.
FACTS
Jaime Arcaina, employed since 1953 as a mechanic and a former president and active member of the petitioner union, was dismissed on May 26, 1958, by company manager Alberto Golden for allegedly leaving work without permission on May 24, 1958. The union requested his reinstatement and, after failed conciliation, filed a notice of strike alleging unfair labor practice and subsequently struck on July 29, 1958. On October 23, 1958, around 300 strikers offered to return to work, but the company refused, having hired replacements. The union filed a complaint in the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for unfair labor practice, citing Arcaina’s dismissal and the refusal to reinstate the strikers. The CIR trial judge ordered reinstatement with back wages for Arcaina and the strikers, finding the dismissal was due to union activities, making the strike an unfair labor practice strike. The CIR en banc reversed this, finding Arcaina’s dismissal was for just cause and the strike was merely economic, thus the replaced strikers had no right to reinstatement. The union appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the dismissal of Jaime Arcaina constituted unfair labor practice and whether the subsequent strike was an unfair labor practice strike, entitling Arcaina and the strikers to reinstatement.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the CIR en banc resolution. It held that while Arcaina’s dismissal was not per se an unfair labor practice, the company’s act of dismissing him without following the required procedure in the collective bargaining agreement (which mandated that dismissals be handled by the company president or, in his absence, by a board with union representation) and without affording him a fair hearing reasonably induced the union to believe in good faith that the dismissal was due to his union activities. Following the precedent in Ferrer vs. CIR, the strike was called to offset what the union warrantedly believed to be unfair labor practice; therefore, it did not result in the termination of the strikers’ employee status. Consequently, Arcaina and the strikers who offered to return to work on October 23, 1958, are entitled to reinstatement but without back wages. The Court ordered their reinstatement to be effected sixty days after the finality of the decision.