G.R. No. L-33015, L-47776, L-30833. September 10, 1979.
GOP-CCP WORKERS UNION, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, GENERAL OFFSET PRESS, INC., AND CONTAINER CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. GENERAL OFFSET PRESS, INC., AND CONTAINER CORPORATION WORKERS UNION-PTGWO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, ET AL., respondents. GOP-CCP WORKERS UNION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND PHILIPPINE LABOR ALLIANCE COUNCIL (PLAC), respondents.

FACTS

These consolidated cases stem from a labor dispute. The GOP-CCP Workers Union and two corporations, General Offset Press, Inc. and Container Corporation of the Philippines, were bound by collective bargaining agreements containing explicit no-strike, no-lockout clauses and a grievance procedure. On October 26, 1967, a complaint for unfair labor practice was filed against the companies. The very next day, October 27, the union staged a strike and established picket lines without prior notice, alleging the companies’ unfair labor practices as the cause.
The companies retaliated by filing a countercharge for unfair labor practice, arguing the strike violated the collective bargaining agreement. The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) declared the strike illegal, ruling the union officers lost their employee status, and authorized the hiring of replacements. Separately, a certification election was scheduled to determine the workers’ bargaining representative. The appellant union, foreseeing defeat, filed last-minute motions to suspend the election. The CIR denied these as dilatory and proceeded with the election, which the appellant union boycotted.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) the legality of the strike staged on October 27, 1967; and (2) the propriety of holding the certification election despite pending motions for reconsideration.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s rulings. On the first issue, the strike was declared illegal. The collective bargaining agreement was a binding contract that included a specific commitment not to strike for the duration of the agreement. The union’s proper recourse for its grievances, including alleged unfair labor practices, was to follow the grievance procedure and arbitration clauses outlined in the agreement or seek redress through the courts, not to engage in a work stoppage. By striking in direct violation of its contractual obligation, the union committed an unfair labor practice. Consequently, the union officers were deemed to have lost their employment status, though the companies were ordered to grant separation pay to eligible strikers under the Termination Pay Law as of the strike date.
On the second issue, the Court held the CIR correctly proceeded with the certification election. The filing of a motion for reconsideration does not automatically suspend a scheduled certification election. The appellant union’s last-minute motions were correctly deemed dilatory tactics aimed at forestalling an election it anticipated losing. Industrial peace required a prompt resolution of the representation question, especially since the old agreement had expired and a rival union had emerged. The appeal on this matter was dismissed as moot, as the appellant union, having boycotted the election and having no remaining members in the company, lacked a continuing interest in the issue.