G.R. No. L-20044 - National Union of Restaurant Workers vs. Court of Industrial Relations

The case involves a petition for review filed by Macleod & Company of the Philippines challenging a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations.
The decision ordered the reinstatement of 38 members of the outside gang of the Progressive Federation of Labor with the payment of back wages computed at the minimum wage for eight hours work.
The petition arose after these 38 laborers, along with other union members, went on strike on May 22, 1952.

On April 18, 1952, the Progressive Federation of Labor sent a letter to the company outlining grievances and demands aimed at improving labor conditions.
The company did not offer a substantive reply to the union’s letter.
On May 2, 1952, the company responded by sending a letter to the 38 outside gang members, notifying them that their services would be terminated 30 days later, effective June 1, 1952.

Following the termination notice, the union consulted its legal counsel and responded:

On May 5, 1952, a letter of protest was sent, urging the company to reconsider its decision and suggesting an alternative work arrangement by assigning the stevedoring work to the outside gang instead of the Davao Stevedore Terminal Company.
On May 10, 1952, the union reiterated its demands and warned that it would call a strike if the termination notice was not withdrawn.

Despite these efforts, the company maintained its position, relying partly on legal advice received from the local public defender—advice that, however, was based on an outdated interpretation of Article 302 of the Code of Commerce, which had been repealed by the new Civil Code.

On May 22, 1952, ten days before the termination date, the union exercised its threat, calling a strike.
Most of the striking members returned to work shortly after the strike; however, the 38 outside gang laborers did not return, effectively leading to their dismissal.
The dismissal and the conditions imposed (including a clause requiring affiliation with another labor organization for readmission) highlighted the company’s stance, which appeared to be aimed at undermining the union.

Whether an employer may terminate the services of employees on a 30-day notice basis when no fixed contract of employment exists.
Whether the company’s reliance on Article 302 of the Code of Commerce (now repealed) is legally tenable in the current framework under the new Civil Code.

Whether the laborers, who did not voluntarily strike but were effectively locked out by the company’s actions, are entitled to receive wages during the strike.
Whether the condition in the employment contract requiring union affiliation as a condition for readmission constitutes an unfair labor practice.