GR L 19777; (February, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19777 February 20, 1967
CROMWELL COMMERCIAL COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. CROMWELL COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS UNION and the COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Cromwell Commercial Co., Inc. (the Company) and respondent Cromwell Commercial Employees and Laborers Union (the Union) entered into a collective bargaining agreement on July 10, 1956. The Union subsequently claimed the Company violated this agreement by: failing to give stipulated salary increases; precluding the organization of a grievance committee by not naming the company’s representative; not restoring previously slashed salaries; unilaterally reverting salesmen from a straight salary to a salary and commission basis; and dismissing Francisco Gaddi and Cresenciano Andrada due to union activities. Efforts to conciliate these differences on March 9, 1957, failed. The Union struck and picketed on March 11, 1957. On March 13, the Company notified striking workers they would be considered dismissed if they did not return by 8:00 a.m. on March 14. The Union offered to return to work only if the Company implemented the 1956 agreement. After further failed conciliation, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Company. The Court of Industrial Relations found the Company guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered the reinstatement of Francisco Gaddi and five locked-out salesmen with half back wages, and the reinstatement of voluntary strikers without back wages. Both parties sought review. The Union’s petition (G.R. No. L-19778) was decided on September 30, 1964, affirming the CIR decision.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Industrial Relations erred in finding the Company guilty of unfair labor practice.
2. Whether the Court of Industrial Relations erred in refusing to declare the strike of March 9, 1957, illegal.
3. Whether the Court of Industrial Relations erred in awarding half back wages to some strikers.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations.
1. The issue of the Company’s unfair labor practice is res adjudicata, as it was already affirmed by the Supreme Court’s final and executory decision in G.R. No. L-19778. The CIR’s finding was based not solely on breach of the collective bargaining agreement but also on discrimination in hire and tenure, dismissal due to union activities, and refusal to bargain collectively in good faith.
2. The legality of the strike is a corollary to the finding of unfair labor practice. The strike was triggered by the Company’s unfair labor practices, including the breach of the collective agreement, discriminatory acts, and refusal to bargain in good faith. This finding is supported by substantial evidence.
3. The award of half back wages to Francisco Gaddi, Cresenciano Andrada, and the salesmen was justified. The salesmen were considered locked out (not voluntary strikers) when ordered to garage their trucks, and discriminatorily dismissed employees are entitled to backpay from the date of discharge. This was also upheld in the prior decision in G.R. No. L-19778.