Ccbpi Postmix Workers Union v. National Labor Relations Commission
CCBPI Postmix Workers Union v. National Labor Relations Commission and Coca-Cola Bottlers, Phil., Inc.; Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 114521 and G.R. No. 123491, November 27, 1998
- Labor Law
- illegal strike
- seven-day strike ban
- cooling-off period
- Article 264 Labor Code
- union officers
- union members
- dismissal of strikers
- reinstatement
- backwages
- quitclaim
- certiorari
- grave abuse of discretion
I. Facts of the Case
The CCBPI Postmix Workers Union, the bargaining agent of regular office and sales employees of Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (Postmix Division), struck on April 20, 1987 after CBA renewal talks deadlocked. The company sought to have the strike declared illegal for violating the mandatory seven-day strike ban, and it dismissed eight employees it believed to be union officers. Two consolidated certiorari petitions questioned the NLRC rulings on the strike's legality and on the dismissals.
June 30, 1986
The CBA between the union and the company was set to expire. Negotiations for its renewal failed to produce agreement.
March 9, 1987
The union filed a Notice of Strike with the DOLE. The DOLE held conciliation hearings, but the bargaining deadlock was not resolved.
April 14, 1987
The union held a strike vote, and the result showed that the members favored a strike.
April 16-17, 1987
During Holy Thursday and Good Friday, the company allegedly removed vendo dispenser machines, raw materials and finished products from the main plant. The union later cited this as its reason for striking on April 20.
April 20, 1987
The union struck. On the same day the company filed a Petition to Declare the Strike Illegal, alleging violation of the mandatory seven-day strike ban under Art. 264(f) of the Labor Code and bad faith for failure to exhaust the conciliation period.
November 27, 1987
After about five months, the strike ended with the signing of the renewed CBA. The CBA included the Memorandum of Agreement of September 23, 1987 and the Amendments finalized in October 1987.
December 14, 1989
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the Petition to Declare Strike Illegal. He found substantial compliance with the seven-day ban because the union struck on the sixth day after the strike vote results were submitted.
December 28, 1993
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter. It held the seven-day ban mandatory, so that even a strike on the seventh day would be illegal. It declared the respondent union officers to have lost their employment status. The company then terminated eight employees believed to be union officers: Devierte, Silvestre, Gumarang, Dula, Piedad, Basco, Dayao and Jumalon.
April 8, 1993
The union filed an NLRC complaint questioning the termination of Gumarang, Piedad, Basco, Jumalon and Dayao. It alleged they were not named in the Petition to Declare the Strike Illegal and were not union officers during the strike.
April 7, 1994
The union filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 114521) to annul the NLRC Resolution of December 28, 1993. It offered a BLR Labor Organization Division certification dated April 18, 1994 showing the terminated employees were not union officers during the April 20, 1987 strike.
October 5, 1994
After the company submitted position papers (July 15 and August 23, 1994) and evidence that the employees were union officers during the strike, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint. He ruled that as union officers, their termination was a logical consequence of participating in the illegal strike. The union appealed to the NLRC, and the company filed an Opposition to Appeal dated December 13, 1994.
August 25, 1995
The NLRC remanded the case for specific determination of which union officers were involved in the April 20, 1987 strike.
December 12, 1995
On the company's motion for reconsideration, the NLRC set aside its August 25, 1995 decision and the Labor Arbiter's decision. It ordered reinstatement of the five employees with full backwages, finding they were not union officers during the strike.
February 5, 1996
The company filed a petition (G.R. No. 123491) alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in its December 12, 1995 decision. The two petitions were consolidated.
January 21, 1997 and February 20, 1997
The company submitted Deeds of Receipt, Release and Quitclaim executed by Gumarang, Piedad, Dayao (Manifestation of January 21, 1997) and Jumalon (Manifestation of February 20, 1997). Only Edmar Basco was left without a settlement.
II. Issues
Whether the strike declared by the union on April 20, 1987 was illegal for failure to comply with the mandatory seven-day strike ban under Art. 264(f) of the Labor Code.
Whether the employees who participated in the strike and were dismissed were union officers at the time of the April 20, 1987 strike.
Whether the employees were validly dismissed as a consequence of their union membership and mere participation in the illegal strike.
III. Ruling
Whether the strike declared by the union on April 20, 1987 was illegal for failure to comply with the mandatory seven-day strike ban under Art. 264(f) of the Labor Code.
The April 20, 1987 strike was illegal because the union did not observe the mandatory seven-day strike ban after submitting the strike vote result. Substantial compliance is not enough.
How the Court reasoned
- Art. 264(f) of the Labor Code requires the strike vote result to be reported to the DOLE, and bars a strike until seven days after the report is submitted. The cooling-off period and the seven-day ban are mandatory.
- The Court read these requirements as strict conditions of a valid strike. Substantial compliance is not enough, and a deficiency of even one day makes the strike illegal.
- Under Art. 13 of the Civil Code, the first day is excluded and the last day is included when counting a period.
- The strike vote result was submitted on April 14, 1987, so the seventh day fell on April 21, 1987. The union struck on April 20, before the ban expired.
- The Court rejected the Labor Arbiter's view that striking on the sixth day was substantial compliance. The union's explanation that the company removed goods and machines during Holy Week did not excuse non-compliance with the mandatory ban.
- The strike was therefore illegal, and the NLRC's finding on this point was upheld.
“In fine, we hold that for failure of the striking union to observe and comply with the seven-day mandatory strike ban, the strike on April 20, 1987 was illegal.”
Rule applied
Article 264(c), (e) and (f) of the Labor Code, in relation to Article 13 of the Civil Code on computation of periods
Whether the employees who participated in the strike and were dismissed were union officers at the time of the April 20, 1987 strike.
The dismissed employees were mere union members, not union officers, when the strike was held. Signing documents as witnesses did not make them officers.
How the Court reasoned
- The rule on loss of employment for an illegal strike turns on whether the worker was a union officer or an ordinary member at the time of the strike. This status must be proven.
- The BLR Labor Organization Division certification showed that the terminated employees were not union officers during the April 20, 1987 strike.
- The company's evidence consisted mainly of the employees signing the CBA, Memorandum and Amendments as witnesses. This did not establish that they were officers.
- Gumarang signed as director only in documents dated September and October 1987, after the strike, so he could not be held liable as an officer during the strike.
- The Court rejected the company's estoppel argument. Estoppel does not apply, and the employees' later signatures did not bar them from showing their true status at the time of the strike.
- The Court was convinced the employees were mere union members when the strike took place.
“In sum, we are convinced that the cited employees were _not_ union officers, but mere union members, when the subject strike was held.”
Rule applied
Article 264(a) of the Labor Code (distinction between union officers and ordinary members in illegal strikes); principles of proof and estoppel
Whether the employees were validly dismissed as a consequence of their union membership and mere participation in the illegal strike.
The employees could not be dismissed merely for joining the illegal strike as ordinary members. No proof was shown that they committed illegal acts, so they are entitled to reinstatement with backwages.
How the Court reasoned
- Under the Labor Code, only a union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike, or any worker or officer who commits illegal acts during a strike, may lose employment. An illegal strike does not justify wholesale dismissal of strikers.
- Since the employees were mere union members, their participation in the illegal strike alone was not a ground for termination.
- The company submitted no clear, substantial and convincing proof that they committed illegal acts during the strike.
- Their dismissal was therefore illegal, and they were entitled to reinstatement with full backwages.
- Gumarang, Piedad, Dayao and Jumalon had executed quitclaims, so only Edmar Basco remained entitled to relief.
- The NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in its December 12, 1995 decision, so both petitions failed.
“Having ruled that the employees were merely union members during the April 20, 1987 strike, we conclude that they cannot be terminated for having joined it, even if here the strike was illegal.”
Rule applied
Article 264(a) and (e) of the Labor Code; Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. v. NLRC; National Federation of Sugar Workers v. Ovejera; Bacus v. Ople
Doctrines
The cooling-off period and the seven-day strike ban after submission of the strike vote report under Art. 264 of the Labor Code are mandatory. Substantial compliance is not sufficient, and a strike held even one day early is illegal.
Periods are computed under Art. 13 of the Civil Code by excluding the first day and including the last.
A union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike, or any worker or officer who commits illegal acts during a strike, may be terminated. An ordinary union member cannot be dismissed for mere participation in an illegal strike without clear, substantial and convincing proof of illegal acts.
Status as a union officer during a strike must be proven. Signing a CBA or related documents as a witness does not make a person a union officer, and estoppel does not apply to bar proof of true status.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, no grave abuse of discretion having been shown on the part of the NLRC, both petitions (G.R. No. 114521 and G.R. No. 123491) were DISMISSED. The April 20, 1987 strike remained illegal, but the NLRC's December 12, 1995 decision ordering reinstatement with full backwages stood. Because Gumarang, Piedad, Dayao and Jumalon had executed quitclaims, only Edmar Basco remained entitled to reinstatement and backwages.
Notes
The Court noted that the union officer/member distinction is difficult to apply in practice. Only Edmar Basco was left with a claim for reinstatement and backwages because the other four employees executed quitclaims.