ILLEGAL STRIKE

9. Illegal Strike
2nd DIVISION [G.R. Nos. 158786 & 158789, October 19, 2007] TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP. WORKERS ASSOCIATION (TMPCWA), et.al. VS. NLRC, et.al. G.R. NOS. 158798-99
TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION VS. TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES CORP. WORKERS ASSOCIATION (TMPCWA), VELASCO, JR., J.: petition under Rule 45

The alleged protest rallies in front of the DOLE and at Toyota plants constituted illegal strikes.

Ludwig Teller identifies six (6) categories of an illegal strike:

(1) contrary to a specific prohibition of law, such as strike by employees performing governmental functions; or
(2)violates a specific requirement of law[, such as Article 263 of the Labor Code on the requisites of a valid strike]; or
(3)is declared for an unlawful purpose, such as inducing the employer to commit an unfair labor practice against non-union employees; or
(4)employs unlawful means in the pursuit of its objective, such as a widespread terrorism of non-strikers [for example, prohibited acts under Art. 264(e) of the Labor Code]; or
(5)is declared in violation of an existing injunction[, such as injunction, prohibition, or order issued by the DOLE Secretary and the NLRC under Art. 263 of the Labor Code]; or
(6)is contrary to an existing agreement, such as a no-strike clause or conclusive arbitration clause.

There was an on-going labor dispute arising from Toyota’s refusal to recognize and negotiate with the Union, thus became the subject of the notice of strike filed by the Union on January 16, 2001.

A strike means any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. A labor dispute includes any controversy or matter concerning terms or conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of the employer and the employee.[35]

It is the substance of the situation and not its appearance which is controlling.[36] The term strike encompasses not only concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sit-downs, attempts to damage, destroy, or sabotage plant equipment and facilities, and similar activities.[37]

Once the DOLE Secretary assumes jurisdiction and certifies the case for NLRC compulsory arbitration , parties must revert to the status quo ante, something . that This the Union and individual respondents did not comply with.

There was no work disruption in the two Toyota plants, but the Union and its members picketed and performed concerted actions in front of the Company premises, violating the assumption of jurisdiction and certification Order of the DOLE Secretary. The Union, by its mass actions, inflamed an already volatile situation. The strikes committed from March 17 to April 12, 2001, were initially legal as the legal requirements were met. However, these became illegal because unlawful means were employed, in violation of Art. 264(e).

Union officers are liable for unlawful strikes or illegal acts during a strike. The responsibility of union officials is greater.

Member’s liability depends on participation in illegal acts: when he knowingly participates in an illegal act during a strike. Under [the rule of vicarious liability], mere membership in a labor union serves as basis of liability for acts of individuals, or for a labor activity, done on behalf of the union. The union member is made liable on the theory that all the members are engaged in a general conspiracy, and the unlawful acts of the particular members are viewed as necessary incidents of the conspiracy. It has been said that in the absence of statute providing otherwise, the rule of vicarious liability applies.

Are the 227 striking employees entitled to separation pay? In a slew of cases, the Court did not award separation pay or financial assistance to union officers and members who were separated from service due to their participation in or commission of illegal acts during strikes. Based on existing jurisprudence, the award of separation pay to the Union officials and members in the instant petitions cannot be sustained.

Henceforth the Supreme Court allows separation pay as a measure of social justice only where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. Where the reason for the valid dismissal is, for example, habitual intoxication or an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker, the employer may not be required to give the dismissed employee separation pay, or financial assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on the ground of social justice.
Compassion for the poor is an imperative of every humane society but only when the recipient is not a rascal claiming an undeserved privilege. Social justice cannot be permitted to be refuge of scoundrels any more than can equity be an impediment to the punishment of the guilty. Those who invoke social justice may do so only if their hands are clean and their motives blameless and not simply because they happen to be poor.

One last point: it is high time that employer and employee cease to view each other as adversaries. When they consider only their own self-interests, and act only with their own benefit in mind, both parties fail to realize that they both have a stake in the business. The employer wants the business to succeed, considering the investment that has been made. The employee in turn, also wants the business to succeed, as continued employment means a living, and the chance to better one’s lot in life. If this becomes a source of conflict, there are various, more amicable means of settling disputes and of balancing interests that open avenues for understanding and cooperation between the employer and the employee. Even though strikes and lockouts have been recognized as effective bargaining tools, they only provide short-term solutions by forcing concessions from one party; but staging such strikes would damage the working relationship between employers and employees, thus endangering the business that they both want to succeed. The more progressive and truly effective means of dispute resolution lies in mediation, conciliation, and arbitration, which do not increase tension but instead provide relief from them. In the end, an atmosphere of trust and understanding has much more to offer a business relationship than the traditional enmity that has long divided the employer and the employee.