LABREL DIGEST – Finals [Assigned] 5.

Intimidation
GR NO. 113466│December 15, 1997 6. Dismissal of union officers and members
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR [NFL] et al [P] • February 3, 1993 – R corporation filed a case to declare the strike
Vs. held on January 25 and 26 as illegal
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION [R] • February 8, 1993 – P union filed a case for unfair labor practice
and damages
FACTS: • February 10, 1993 – Another conciliation was held in connection
• R Corp is engaged in the business of fish and tuna export; its co- with the February 5, 1993 NOS
respondents are its corporate officers • February 11, 1993 – Workers barricaded the company gates, tying
• P union is a legitimate labor federation; 141 of its members were the same with ropes and chains and preventing non-striking
dismissed employees of R Corporation workers from entering or leaving the premises
• P union contends that 10 union officials who attended a • From February 12 to March 2, 1993, the company was
certification election conference were: constrained to ferry its workers to and from the company premises
1. Barred from entering the company premises and through its wharf with the use of motorboats
2. Prohibited to work, allegedly due to their union activities • March 3, 1993 – The striking workers cut the company fence
leading to the wharf, gained control of the same, and chained close
NLRC – Company’s actuations did not consist in a lockout but were the last point of entrance and exit to and from the premises
related to disciplinary matter, which is not connected with a labor The acts of coercion, intimidation and harassment were
dispute committed by the striking workers, including the uttering of
The 10 were subjected to some disciplinary actions due to threats of bodily harm against non-striking workers and
breach of company discipline, such that, they were using company officials
their union activities to go on undertime or to justify their • March 11, 1993 – SOLE assumed jurisdiction over the dispute
constant and frequent absences [violation of company pursuant to a petition of the NFL filed on January 29, 1993 [NOS]
policy] SOLE issued a Return to Work Order ordering all striking
workers should return by March 15, 1993
• January 25, 1993 – The workers attempted to re-enter the • PNP’s intercession was ignored
company’s premises but were prevented from doing so; thus, over • March 29, 1993 – The workers finally lifted their picket lines
200 workers staged a picket outside
The gates were barricaded; thus, blocking the ingress and NLRC – (on appeal) affirmed the decision of LA
egress of company vehicles, trapping 50 workers inside and
paralyzing company operations ISSUE: W/N THE STRIKE WAS ILLEGAL → YES
• January 26, 1993 – 700 non-striking workers were prevented from
working RULING:
• January 27, 1993 – The workers returned to work due to a • In this case, no notice of strike, as required by Article 263 [g] was
memorandum forged between the P union and R corporation filed by P union prior to the strike on January 25 and 26
(explain their participation in the strike) • No prior notice of the taking of a strike vote was furnished the
• The workers failed to submit their explanations; thus, the NCMB, nor was the seven-day strike ban after the strike vote
management placed them under preventive suspension observed
Instead, the workers immediately barricaded company
• January 29, 1993 – P union filed a NOS [NCMB] and they filed premises in the afternoon of January 25, 1996, completely
again another NOS since it was contested by the P corporation disregarding the procedural steps prescribed by Art. 263 (c)
The NOS alleged the following: and (f)
1. Discrimination
2. Coercion • As for the strike commenced on February 11, only six days had
3. Union busting elapsed from the filing of the Notice to Strike on February 5, 1993
4. Black listing of union members
• In addition, various illegal acts were committed by the strikers
during said strike. A strike (or lockout), to enjoy the protection of law, must observe
The strikers destroyed company property and intimidated certain procedural requisites mentioned in Art. 263 and the
and harassed non-striking workers in violation of Art. 264 (e)
Implementing Rules, namely:
of the Labor Code.
Likewise, barricading, chaining and padlocking of dates to
prevent free ingress and egress into company premises are
also violations of the self-same article.
• The P union is wrong in asserting that the strike can be declared 1) A notice of strike, with the required contents, should be
legal for it was done in good faith filed with the DOLE, specifically the Regional Branch of the
Even if the union acted in good faith in the belief that the
NCMB, copy furnished the employer of the union;
company was committing an unfair labor practice, if no
notice of strike and a strike vote were conducted, the said
strike is illegal

ISSUE 2: W/N THE DISMISSAL OF 141 WORKERS IS BASED 2) A cooling-off period must be observed between the filing
SOLELY ON A PRIMA FACIE FINDING THAT THEY COMMITTED of notice and the actual execution of the strike thirty (30)
VARIOUS UNLAWFUL ACTS WHILE STAGING THEIR STRIKE → days in case of bargaining deadlock and fifteen (15) days in
NO
case of unfair labor practice. However, in the case of union
• The dismissal is principally based on their refusal to return to busting where the union's existence is threatened, the
work after the Secretary of Labor had assumed jurisdiction over the cooling-off period need not be observed.
case on March 11, 1993.
• Despite the efforts of PNP personnel to persuade the workers to xxx xxx xxx
comply with the Return-to-Work Order, the strike continued until
March 29, 1993 when the workers dismantled their pickets.

As held in St. Scholastica's College v.Hon. Ruben Torres and

Samahan ng Manggagawang Pang-edukasyon sa Sta. 4) Before a strike is actually commenced, a strike vote
Escolastika 14 "(a) strike undertaken despite the issuance should be taken by secret balloting, with a 24-hour prior
by the Secretary of Labor of an assumption or certification notice to NCMB. The decision to declare a strike requires the
order becomes a prohibited activity and thus illegal, secret-ballot approval of majority of the total union
pursuant to the second paragraph of Art. 264 of the Labor membership in the bargaining unit concerned.
Code, as amended . . . The union officers and members, as
a result, are deemed to have lost their employment status
for having knowingly participated in an illegal act." "Case
law, likewise, provides that by staging a strike after the
assumption or certification for arbitration, the workers 5) The result of the strike vote should be reported to the
forfeited their right to be readmitted to work, having NCMB at least seven (7) days before the intended strike or
abandoned their employment." lockout, subject to the cooling-off period. 6
• P union’s refusal to return to work has no factual basis since the
form imposing certain conditions before admitting them back to
work was prior to the return to work order issued by the SOLE on
March 11, 1993
The provisions hardly leave any room for doubt that the meant to be, and should be deemed, mandatory [Art. 264
cooling-off period in Art. 264(c) and the seven-day strike should now read Art. 263]. 7
ban after the strike-vote report prescribed in Art. 264(f) were