University of the Philippines College of Law
AYA, E
Topic Union-Member Relations – Union Information/Obligation (Art.250(p))
Case No. G.R. No. 51544 / Aug. 30, 1990
Case Name Continental Cement Corp., Labor Union v. Continental Cement
Ponente GANCAYCO, J.
RELEVANT FACTS
The NLRC issued an arbitration award resolving certain demands of the petitioner Continental Cement
Corporation Labor Union respecting the working terms and conditions that should be observed in the
establishment of private respondent, Continental Cement Corporation. Due to disagreement on the interpretation
of the provisions of the award, compliance therewith was delayed. The union then staged a strike, which was
lifted after the employer agreed to pay the disputed employees’ leaves.
Meanwhile, the employer sought clarification from the labor arbiter on proportionate payment of vacation and
sick leave benefits. The LA ruled that the employer was required to make proportional payments. This ruling was
appealed, but the union filed a notice of strike for refusal by the employer to make such proportionate payments.
The strike was settled after the employer agreed to pay, albeit with the reservation of the right to seek clarification
of its obligations under the NLRC award.
Another strike was held by the union after the employer requested an extension of the period to pay the employees
their vacation and sick leaves. The Minister of Labor issued an order directing the striking workers to resume
work. Nevertheless, only 11 out of the total work force of about 120 workers in one shift reported for work.
The union filed a motion for reconsideration of the return-to-work order or its suspension pending compliance by
the employer with the NLRC arbitration award. Picketing was resumed despite the presence of military personnel
who were called to assist in the implementation of the return-to-work order. Subsequently, the Minister of Labor
certified the dispute between the parties to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. Under the Labor Code, this
certification had the effect of automatically enjoining any strike by the Union. Nonetheless, some 110 striking
workers did not return to work. Consequently, the employer terminated those who failed to comply with the
return-to-work order, including the union president and 7 other officers.
ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
W/N the strike was illegal YES.
1. Under PD 823, all forms of strikes, picketing and lockouts are strictly
prohibited in vital industries. Letter of Instruction No. 368 of the
President provides that companies or firms engaged in the manufacture
or processing of cement are considered vital industries.
2. Even assuming that the employer was not engaged in a vital industry,
the strike was nonetheless illegal. It was not in connection with any
unresolved economic issue in collective bargaining which is the only
ground for which a lawful strike can be held. The issue between the
parties at the time of the strike concerned merely the implementation
of an arbitration award of the NLRC. The union had a remedy by
applying for a writ of execution to enforce that award.
University of the Philippines College of Law
AYA, E
3. Under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 823, there is a requirement
of notice filed with the Bureau of Labor Relations at least 30 days
before the intended strike. A notice of strike is intended to enable the
Bureau of Labor Relations to try to settle the dispute amicably. The
strike held by the union denied the Bureau this opportunity.
4. The union invokes the right to strike as a measure of self-defense as it
had been driven to the wall by the unjust refusal of the employer to
comply with the NLRC award. However, the non-compliance did not
threaten the existence of petitioner or that of its members, for it merely
involved the non-payment of the vacation and sick leaves of the
employees for the past years’ services.
W/N the termination of NO.
employment of the union
officers was too harsh 1. The officers had the duty to guide their members to respect the
law. Instead, they urged them to violate the law and defy the duly
constituted authorities. Their responsibility is greater than that of
the members. Their dismissal from the service is a just penalty for
their unlawful acts.
2. It is within the power of the NLRC to order the removal of the union
officers. This is provided for in the labor law:
"Art. 242. [now 250] Rights and conditions of membership in a labor
organization. — The following are the rights and conditions of
membership in a labor organization:
(p) It shall be the duty of any labor organization and its officers to
inform its members on provisions of the constitution and by-laws,
collective bargaining agreement, the prevailing labor relations
system and all their rights and obligations under existing labor
laws. For this purpose, registered labor organizations may assess
reasonable dues to finance labor relations seminars and other labor
education activities.
Any violation of the above rights and conditions of membership
shall be a ground for cancellation of union registration or
expulsion of an officer from office, which ever is appropriate. At
least 30 per cent of all the members of a union or any member or
members specifically concerned may report such violation to the
Bureau. The Bureau shall have the power to hear and decide any
reported violation and to mete out the appropriate penalty.”
3. The union officers misinformed the members and led them into
staging an illegal strike. If the NLRC is to attain the objective of the
Labor Code to ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace,
the removal of undesirable labor leaders must be effected.
RULING
University of the Philippines College of Law
AYA, E
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED as it has not been shown that the public respondent committed any
grave abuse of discretion in rendering the orders dated March 6, 1979 and August 1, 1979 affirming the decision
of the NLRC dated March 10, 1977.
