Legal purpose, illegal means

Even if a strike is valid because its purpose is lawful, it may still be declared invalid where the means employed are illegal. This is the ruling applied in this case of an employees union (EASA) and 17 members including its president who are employed in an aviation company (ASA) engaged in providing transportation to guests of two exclusive resorts in Palawan.

EASA and ASA had a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective January 1, 1997 to December 31, 1999. The CBA included a “No Strike, No Lockout” clause.

On May 1 and 12, and June 12, 1997, legal holidays and peak season for the company, eight mechanics-union members refused to render overtime work. ASA treated the refusal as a concerted action in violation of the above clause. So it meted a 30 day suspension to the workers and on July 31, 1997, it filed a complaint for illegal strike against them in the NLRC (Case No. 07-97). Later on the case was dismissed at ASA’s instance to give way to settlement without prejudice to its re-filing if settlement failed.

On October 3, 1997 EASA filed a “Notice of Strike” in view of the failure of the settlement, attributing to ASA the following illegal acts: (1) union busting; (2) illegal dismissal of union officer; (3) illegal suspension of 8 mechanics; (4) violation of the MOA; (5) coercion of employees and interrogation of newly hired mechanics with regard to union affiliation; (6) discrimination against aircraft mechanics; (7) harassment through systematic fault-finding; (8) contractual labor; and (constructive dismissal of union president. Since no amicable settlement could be arrived at during conciliation conference, EASA went on strike on October 22, 1997.

During the on-going second strike, starting October 29, 1997 until January 1998, 14 sporadic incidents occurred in nine non-consecutive days where the striking union members including the president and the mechanics, engaged in repeated name calling, harassment and threats of bodily harm directed against company Personnel Manager, Chief Operating Officer, Mechanical and Engineering Manager, Avionics Technician, non striking employees, and a security guard. Banners, placards and streamers with vulgar statements imputing criminal negligence to the company and its officers were also put up.

So on June 16, 1998, eight months into the second strike, ASA filed another complaint before another Labor Arbiter (LA) against EASA and the 17 union members involved praying for the declaration of the second strike as illegal on account of said incidents where there were allegedly pervasive use of force and widespread violence.

On June 15, 2000 the LA rendered a decision declaring the second strike illegal taking judicial notice of the September 28, 1998 LA decision in NLRC Case No. 07-97 which was earlier revived upon motion of ASA where it was ruled that the refusal of the 8 mechanics to render overtime work during the legal holidays was a form of concerted action and illegal for failure of the union to comply with the formal requirements before holding a strike. The NLRC affirmed this ruling and further held that even if the strike was legal at the onset, the commission of violent and unlawful acts by the individual union members in the course thereof rendered it illegal. Was the NLRC correct?

Yes. The acts complained of including the display of placards and banners imputing criminal negligence on the part of the company and its officers apparently with the end in view of intimidating the company’s clientele, are, given the nature of its business, that serious as to make the second strike illegal. The putting up of these banners and placards coupled with the name calling and harassment likewise indicate that they were resorted to in order to coerce the resolution of the dispute—the very evil which the law (Article 264, Labor Code) seeks to prevent.

Indeed even if the purpose of a strike is valid, the strike may still be declared illegal when the means employed are illegal. Thus the employment of violence, intimidation, restraint or coercion in carrying out concerted activities which are injurious to persons and property render a strike illegal. This is true even if the acts were committed sporadically or in none consecutive days during the eight months that the strike were on-going. Nowhere in Article 264 does it require that the violence must be continuing or that it should be for the entire period of the strike.

But the liability for prohibited acts must be determined on an individual basis. Hence the case should be remanded to the NLRC only for the purpose of determining the status in the union of the participants in the strike and their respective liability (A. Soriano Aviation vs. Employees Association of A. Soriano Aviation et. al., G.R. 166879, August 14, 2009)

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445. –Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)

* * *

E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net