G.R. No. L-34948-49 - Philippine Metal Foundries, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations

Petitioner: Philippine Metal Foundries, Inc. (later dissolved and merged with Shriro [Philippines] Inc.)
Respondents:

Case No. 3941-ULP – Petition filed by Philippine Metal Foundries, Inc. charging REGEMAS and its members with unfair labor practice for declaring a strike on October 5, 1963, and picketing without filing a required notice, in contravention of the no strike, no lockout clause and grievance procedure contained in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Case No. 3932-ULP – Private respondents charged the petitioner and its General Manager with unfair labor practice owing to the dismissal of Celestino Baylon on October 3, 1963, allegedly because of his union activities defending and promoting the rights of union members.

On October 3, 1963, the Union requested a grievance conference, specifying time and place, which was aimed at addressing issues raised by the Union concerning labor conditions and contractual provisions.
The company, through its General Manager, refused the grievance request, instead dismissing Baylon and advising Union members not to report for work, thus supposedly contravening the no lockout and no strike provision.

On October 5, 1963, the Union declared a strike, which it justified on the basis of the alleged unfair dismissal of its President and as a reaction to the company’s disregard of its contractual commitments.
Philippine Metal Foundries, Inc. and its management defended their actions by claiming that Baylon’s repeated absences from work, recorded from January to September 1963, justified his termination, citing specific disciplinary policies under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Multiple instances of unexcused absences and tardiness were recorded from January to September 1963, including:

The Collective Bargaining Agreement provided that an employee absent without notice for one week should be dropped automatically, indicating a ground for immediate dismissal.
Such policies were argued by the petitioner to justify Baylon’s termination on grounds of habitual absence.

Baylon had submitted a written explanation for his absences upon reporting on October 1, 1963.
His appointment as Union President and his invitation for a grievance conference on October 5, 1963, immediately preceded his termination on October 3, 1963, suggesting an ulterior motive behind the company’s action.

The petitioner eventually accepted the grievance conference request, albeit only to later dismiss Baylon within two hours after accepting the invitation, thereby nullifying any chance for a fair hearing on the matter.

Whether Celestino Baylon was dismissed solely due to his accumulated unexcused absences from January to September 1963, as argued by the petitioner.
Or whether the termination was primarily motivated by his union activities and his role as Union President.

Whether the strike, declared on October 5, 1963, constituted a violation of the “no strike” clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Or whether the strike was justified as a retaliatory response to an unfair labor practice (the dismissal of Baylon) by the company.