G.R. No. L-19767; April 30, 1964
RIZAL CEMENT WORKERS UNION (FFW), FRANCISCO OLORES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. MADRIGAL & COMPANY, INC., CANDIDO DE LEON and JOHNNY DE LEON & COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

The Rizal Cement Workers Union (FFW) filed an unfair labor practice case against Rizal Cement Co., Inc., alleging a lockout of 21 union-member workers at the company’s Bodega Tanque warehouse in Paco, Manila. This occurred on May 28, 1956, the day after the union had declared a strike at the company’s main plant in Binangonan, Rizal. The warehouse encargado, Candido de Leon, acting on instructions from management, stationed himself at the gate and prevented the 21 union members from entering the premises to work, while allowing non-union members to enter. The company justified this action by citing its apprehension of potential sabotage at the warehouse, following reported damage at the struck Binangonan plant. The union protested this as discriminatory.

ISSUE

Whether the company’s act of denying the 21 union-member workers entry to the warehouse constituted an unfair labor practice in the form of a discriminatory lockout under Section 4(a)(4) of the Industrial Peace Act ( Republic Act No. 875 ).

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Industrial Relations’ decision, ruling that the company’s action did not constitute an unfair labor practice. The legal logic centers on the specific intent required for a violation of Section 4(a)(4) of R.A. 875. The provision prohibits discrimination in employment “to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.” The Court found that the company’s refusal to admit the workers was not motivated by an intent to interfere with their union membership. Instead, the act was a defensive measure borne from a justified and specific fear of sabotage at the warehouse, a legitimate business concern given the ongoing strike and reported damage at the related plant. The evidence showed the strike notice and the union’s demands explicitly covered the warehouse workers, linking their activities to the industrial dispute. Since the discriminatory act lacked the requisite anti-union animus or purpose to encourage or discourage union membership, it did not meet the statutory definition of an unfair labor practice. Consequently, the award of back wages to the workers only from the finality of the related strike case decision (May 28, 1961), and not from the date of the lockout (May 28, 1956), was deemed proper and reasonable.