G.R. No. L-21465 March 31, 1966
INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL-AGRICULTURAL WORKERS’ ORGANIZATION (ICAWO), petitioner-appellant, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE PILAR and/or ANTONIO BELZARENA as Manager, CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE PILAR ALLIED WORKERS ASSOCIATION (CAPAWA), respondents-appellees.

FACTS

On February 9, 1956, petitioner Industrial-Commercial-Agricultural Workers’ Organization (ICAWO) declared a strike against respondent Central Azucarera de Pilar. The strike was settled the next day through an “Amicable Settlement” wherein the company agreed not to discriminate against any worker, including ICAWO affiliates who struck. ICAWO also intended to file a petition for certification election due to the presence of another union, the Central Azucarera de Pilar Allied Workers Association (CAPAWA), with whom the company had an existing collective bargaining contract containing a closed-shop clause. This clause required new employees to join CAPAWA within thirty days from employment or face dismissal. Among the strikers were 101 seasonal workers, some of whom had worked for the company since pre-war years. At the opening of the 1956-1957 milling season, the company refused to re-admit these 101 seasonal workers, citing the closed-shop agreement with CAPAWA. On May 8, 1958, ICAWO filed an unfair labor practice charge. The Court of Industrial Relations initially ordered reinstatement with back wages but reversed this decision en banc upon reconsideration. ICAWO filed the present petition for certiorari to review the reversal.

ISSUE

Whether the 101 seasonal workers, who had been repeatedly rehired each milling season, are considered “new workers” under the closed-shop agreement between the company and CAPAWA, such that the company’s refusal to re-admit them for not joining CAPAWA was legal.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside the resolution under review and directed the Court of Industrial Relations to order the reinstatement of the 101 seasonal workers. The Court ruled that these seasonal workers were not “new workers” within the scope of the closed-shop contract. Citing the precedent in Manila Hotel Company vs. Court of Industrial Relations, the Court held that regular seasonal employees, who are called to work from time to time, are not separated from service during the off-season but are merely considered on leave of absence without pay; their employment relationship is suspended, not severed. The fact that many had worked for the Central for many seasons without interruption created a reasonable expectation of continued employment. The cessation of milling activities at the end of each season was a temporary, foreseeable suspension due to a passing shortage of raw material, not a permanent cessation. Therefore, their discharge for not complying with the closed-shop clause was illegal. The Court also found that the petitioner union did not incur laches in filing the complaint. Regarding backpay, the matter was remanded to the industrial court for determination based on evidence of the employer’s good faith and the employees’ earnings during the layoff. A subsequent motion for reconsideration by the respondents was denied on August 23, 1966, reaffirming the ruling that the seasonal layoff does not sever the employment relationship.