GR L 20667; (October, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20667 and L-20669, October 29, 1965
PHILIPPINE STEAM NAVIGATION CO., petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE OFFICERS GUILD, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
The Philippine Steam Navigation Co. (PHILSTEAM) is a domestic corporation engaged in inter-island shipping. In 1954, the Philippine Marine Officers Guild (PMOG), a labor union, sent PHILSTEAM a set of demands and requested collective bargaining. PHILSTEAM responded by requiring PMOG to first prove its majority representation before considering the demands. On the same day (June 29, 1954), PHILSTEAM began interrogating and investigating its captains, deck officers, and engineers to determine if they had joined or authorized PMOG to represent them. PMOG refused to submit proof of majority representation and insisted on bargaining first. After failed conferences at the Department of Labor, PHILSTEAM recognized another union, the Cebu Seamen’s Association (CSA), as the majority representative and signed a collective bargaining agreement with CSA on August 24, 1954. On the same date, PMOG declared a strike against PHILSTEAM. The President certified the dispute to the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). The CIR, after a joint trial of multiple cases, found in Case 618-ULP that PHILSTEAM committed unfair labor practice by interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in their right to self-organization. In Case 1002-ULP, it found PMOG did not commit unfair labor practice. In Case 6-IPA, it ruled PMOG’s strike was justified and lawful. The CIR ordered PHILSTEAM to cease and desist from such unfair practices and to reinstate the striking employees. PHILSTEAM appealed.
ISSUE
1. Whether PHILSTEAM committed unfair labor practice.
2. Whether PMOG’s strike was illegal.
3. Whether the striking employees are entitled to reinstatement.
RULING
1. Yes, PHILSTEAM committed unfair labor practice. The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s finding that PHILSTEAM’s interrogation and investigation of employees regarding their union affiliation, which began even before receiving PMOG’s refusal to submit proof of majority representation, interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in their right to self-organization, constituting unfair labor practice under Section 4(a)(1) of Republic Act 875. Substantial evidence supported the CIR’s findings, including vilification of PMOG by a PHILSTEAM supervisory official and participation in soliciting membership for a competing union.
2. No, PMOG’s strike was not illegal; it was justified. The strike was a consequence of PHILSTEAM’s unfair labor practice, which began on June 29, 1954. PMOG’s notice of strike, filed on July 17, 1954, cited unfair labor practices as the reason, predating the PHILSTEAM-CSA agreement signed on August 24, 1954. Thus, the strike was for a lawful purpose.
3. Yes, the striking employees are entitled to reinstatement. Since the strike was a consequence of PHILSTEAM’s unfair labor practice, the strikers have a right to reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without back salaries, unless they had found substantially equivalent employment elsewhere. This right exists even if PHILSTEAM hired replacements to continue operations. The argument that reinstatement was forfeited due to the strike’s failure to paralyze the business or the lack of a voluntary offer to return to work is irrelevant, as back wages were not awarded and the union did not appeal.
The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s decision and resolution, with costs against PHILSTEAM.