Title
Jackbilt Concrete Block Co., Inc. vs. Norton and Harrison Co.
Case
G.R. No. L-39174
Decision Date
May 7, 1976
The Supreme Court rules for the company, denying striking employees reinstatement, back wages, and separation pay due to their failure to report for work.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-39174)

Facts:

  • Two petitions for review on certiorari were filed by Jackbilt Concrete Block Co., Inc. and Albert Golden (G.R. No. L-39174) and Norton & Harrison Co., Inc. (G.R. No. L-39186).
  • Respondents included Norton & Harrison Co., Jackbilt Concrete Block Co. Labor Union-NLU, and the Court of Industrial Relations.
  • The petitions arose from an Order dated December 28, 1973, and a Resolution en banc dated July 31, 1974, in Case No. 1799-ULP.
  • A prior Supreme Court decision (G.R. No. L-18461) on February 10, 1967, ordered the reinstatement of Jaime Arcaina and other strikers without back wages, following a strike deemed conducted in good faith.
  • The strikers alleged unfair labor practices by management, but management was later absolved of these charges.
  • Petitioners claimed operational changes due to plant modernization reduced their workforce from 228 to 122 employees, limiting the number of strikers they could reinstate.
  • Medical examinations were required for reinstatement to assess fitness for work.
  • The Court of Industrial Relations issued orders for reinstatement, but many strikers did not return, citing health issues.
  • The Court eventually ordered petitioners to pay back wages starting September 7, 1967, leading to the current petitions.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Industrial Relations erred in ordering the petitioners to pay back wages to the striking employees.
  • The Supreme Court held that the Court of Industrial Relations erred in granting another period for the strikers to report back for work.
  • The Supreme Court...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court emphasized that the prior decision in G.R. No. L-18461 mandated reinstatement without back wages, as the petitioners were not guilty of unfair labor practices.
  • The Court of Industrial Relations exceeded its ...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.