Title
Insurefco Paper Pulp and Project Worker's Union vs. Sugar Refining Corp.
Case
G.R. No. L-7594
Decision Date
Sep 8, 1954
The strike by the Insurefco Paper Pulp & Project Worker's Union against Insular Sugar Refining Corporation is deemed illegal for being premature, damaging the refinery's operations, and breaching a prior agreement for amicable dispute resolution.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7594)

Facts:

  • The case involves two petitions for review regarding a decision by the Court of Industrial Relations dated December 8, 1953.
  • The dispute arose from a strike by the Insurefco Paper Pulp & Project Workers' Union (the "Union") against the Insular Sugar Refining Corporation (the "Company").
  • On June 12, 1952, the Union presented two sets of economic demands, including wage increases, elimination of the rotation system, enforcement of check-off, profit-sharing, union representation in management, and an option to purchase the refinery.
  • A third demand concerning threats and violence was submitted on June 14, 1952, but the Acting General Manager was absent, preventing immediate action.
  • The Union declared a strike without prior notice on June 14, 1952, leading to a complete halt of refinery operations.
  • The Company filed a petition on June 18, 1952, to declare the strike illegal and to dismiss the responsible leaders.
  • The Court of Industrial Relations ruled the strike unjustified and illegal, allowing the Company to dismiss the Union leaders.
  • Both parties were dissatisfied and filed petitions for review.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Court upheld the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, affirming that the strike was unreasonable, unjustified, and illegal.
  • The Court ruled that the Company was justified in dismissing the Union leaders responsible for the strike.
  • The Court found no necessity to address the Company's cont...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court reasoned that the Union's strike was premature and unjustified, as it was declared without allowing the Company reasonable time to consider the demands.
  • The absence of the Acting General Manager and key Board members was known to the Union leaders.
  • The Court emphasized that strikes should only occur after management has duly considered and rejected ...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.