Case Summary (G.R. No. 116128)
Applicable Law
The applicable law in this case includes provisions from the Labor Code of the Philippines, specifically Article 263(g), which pertains to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor over labor disputes, and Article 264(a), which governs the legality of strikes and the conditions under which employees may be terminated for participating in strikes.
Case Background
The conflict arose following the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement on June 30, 1984, where the union and the bank could not agree on wage increases, prompting the union to file a notice of strike. Minister of Labor Blas Ople intervened, issuing orders that led to a return-to-work order, although subsequent strikes ensued, which members of the union—including the respondents—participated in. The bank asserted that the strikes violated the Secretary of Labor’s orders, leading to dismissals for allegedly abandoning their jobs following multiple warnings and return-to-work notices.
Labor Arbiter’s Decision
The Labor Arbiter concluded that the strikes were declared illegal as they occurred despite a valid return-to-work order in place. Consequently, union officers were found to have lost their employment status for participating in these illegal acts. However, for the non-officer employees, their dismissal was deemed invalid since they did not commit any illegal actions during the strikes. The Arbiter ordered reinstatement of those employees along with back wages.
NLRC and Supreme Court Review
The NLRC later upheld the Labor Arbiter's ruling regarding the illegal dismissal of the union officers but found that the non-officer employees should be reinstated. The Supreme Court, however, found that dismissals resulting from the employees' defiance of return-to-work orders were valid and thus affirmed the NLRC’s findings while rejecting its remand regarding back wages, as it was inconsistent with the ruling of valid dismissal.
Legal Principles and Findings
The Supreme Court articulated that mere participation in an illegal strike does not automatically lead to dismissal unless it involves defiance of a lawful order. The return-to-work order is non-discretionary and must be adhered to by the employees during the pendency of labor disputes. The
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 116128)
Case Summary
- This case involves the petitions filed by Allied Banking Corporation (the Bank) and various employees represented by the Allied Banking Employees Union (the Union) concerning the legality of dismissals following a series of strikes.
- The pivotal issue is whether the striking employees were validly dismissed for failing to comply with a return-to-work order issued by the Secretary of Labor.
- The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of the Bank, affirming the legality of the dismissals, but remanded the case regarding back wages for certain employees.
Background of the Case
- The dispute began with the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement between the Bank and the Union on June 30, 1984, leading to failed negotiations, particularly concerning wage increases.
- The Union filed a notice of strike, prompting the Minister of Labor and Employment, Blas Ople, to assume jurisdiction over the dispute.
- A return-to-work order was issued on January 6, 1985, which included a P1,000 grant per employee.
- Strikes occurred on January 3-4, 1985, and again from February 11 to March 11, 1985, despite the ongoing jurisdiction by the Minister.
Actions Taken by the Bank and the Union
- The Bank attempted to facilitate a return to work and issued not