NAFLU v. Filflex Industrial And Manufacturing Corporation
Biflex Phils. Inc. Labor Union (NAFLU) v. Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Corporation, G.R. No. 155679, December 19, 2006
- Labor Law
- illegal strike
- welga ng bayan
- notice of strike
- strike vote
- report of strike vote
- labor union officers
- loss of employment status
- Labor Code Article 263
- collective bargaining agent
- Work stoppage
I. Facts of the Case
Petitioners, officers of the Biflex (Phils.) Inc. Labor Union (NAFLU) and of the Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Labor Union, staged a work stoppage in their employers’ garment businesses on the date of a nationwide “welga ng bayan.” Respondents argued that the strike/work stoppage was illegal because the statutory procedural requirements for a valid strike—notice of strike, a strike vote, and the required report of the strike vote to the Department of Labor and Employment—were not complied with. Petitioners insisted that the work stoppage was an effect of the welga ng bayan and that employees were allegedly prevented from reporting for work due to the situation created by the protest, while also claiming their tents and tables were for workers’ convenience to check on management’s willingness to accept them. The Labor Arbiter declared the work stoppage an illegal strike, and the case proceeded through the NLRC and the Court of Appeals on whether those procedural requirements were satisfied and what legal consequences should follow for the union officers and employees.
October 24, 1990
A nationwide “welga ng bayan” was staged by the labor sector to protest the accelerating prices of oil. On the same date, the two petitioner-unions, led by their officers, staged a work stoppage that lasted for several days.
October 31, 1990
Respondents filed a petition to declare the work stoppage illegal for failure to comply with the procedural requirements for a valid strike. Respondents later resumed operations on November 13, 1990.
December 15, 1992
The Labor Arbiter ruled for respondents and declared the work stoppage/strike illegal, holding that the statutory requirements for a valid strike were not met, and consequently declared that the union officers lost their employment status as a consequence of the illegal strike.
August 14, 1995
The NLRC issued a resolution reversing the Labor Arbiter’s decision (i.e., setting aside the Labor Arbiter’s finding as to the illegality and/or its consequences).
May 28, 2002
The Court of Appeals set aside the NLRC resolution of August 14, 1995 and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
December 19, 2006
The Supreme Court resolved the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners, addressing whether the work stoppage was legally conducted as a valid strike and the consequences of any illegality for the union officers.
II. Issues
Whether the petitioners’ work stoppage in connection with the welga ng bayan was an illegal strike for failure to comply with the procedural requirements for a valid strike.
Whether the union officers of petitioners could be declared to have lost their employment status as a consequence of an illegal strike.
III. Ruling
Whether the petitioners’ work stoppage in connection with the welga ng bayan was an illegal strike for failure to comply with the procedural requirements for a valid strike.
The Court held that the work stoppage/strike was illegal because the required legal procedural steps for a valid strike were not complied with.
How the Court reasoned
- Under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, a strike is not simply a labor action decided by the union; it must be conducted with specific procedural safeguards.
- Those procedural requirements include (1) filing a notice of strike, (2) holding a strike vote (typically by secret ballot), and (3) submitting the required report of the strike vote to the Department of Labor and Employment.
- The employer challenged the work stoppage precisely on these grounds, asserting that none of the statutory requisites had been complied with.
- Although petitioners invoked the fact that the work stoppage coincided with a welga ng bayan and claimed practical difficulties (e.g., alleged prevention of employees from reporting), the Court treated compliance with the statutory strike requirements as controlling for determining the legality of the work stoppage.
- Consequently, the work stoppage could not be considered a valid strike under the Labor Code, and it remained an illegal strike.
Rule applied
Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code of the Philippines (as the provision governing the procedural requirements for the valid staging of a strike), in relation to the requirements of filing a notice of strike, holding a strike vote, and reporting the strike vote to the Department of Labor and Employment.
Whether the union officers of petitioners could be declared to have lost their employment status as a consequence of an illegal strike.
The Court held that union officers could be declared to have lost their employment status when they participated in and led an illegal strike.
How the Court reasoned
- The legal effects of an illegal strike under the Labor Code include sanctions affecting participants, and union officers may be specifically reached when their participation or leadership is shown.
- The Labor Arbiter’s decree expressly declared that the union officers lost employment status as a consequence of the finding of an illegal strike.
- The Court, after upholding the illegality of the strike/work stoppage, likewise sustained the consequence imposed on the officers as part of the Labor Code’s scheme for discipline of unlawful work stoppages.
Rule applied
Article 263(g) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, on the consequences of participating in an illegal strike, particularly as to union officers and employees who participated or were directly involved.
Doctrines
For a strike to be considered legally valid, unions and their officers must comply with the procedural requirements under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, including the filing of a notice of strike, the holding of a strike vote, and the reporting of the strike vote to the Department of Labor and Employment. Non-compliance renders the strike illegal.
When a strike is declared illegal for failure to comply with the Labor Code’s requirements, the Labor Code’s sanctions may extend to union officers who participated in or led the unlawful work stoppage, including loss of employment status as imposed by the competent labor tribunal.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 28, 2002 is AFFIRMED, and the Labor Arbiter’s Decision dated December 15, 1992 declaring the work stoppage an illegal strike and imposing the corresponding consequences is REINSTATED.
Notes
This digest is based on the provided text preview; key procedural facts relied upon by respondents were the absence of notice of strike, the strike vote, and the required report to the Department of Labor and Employment.