To be lawful, a strike must have a lawful purpose and should be executed through lawful means.
The union in this case asserted that it conducted a strike in good faith. It claimed to have had a sincere belief that its employer had committed an unfair labor practice. Also, it hoped that the said employer would be willing to negotiate the economic aspects of their collective bargaining agreement that was to expire soon. The union further insisted that all it did was to conduct an orderly, peaceful, and moving picket.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
The union’s disregard of the procedural requirements for conducting a valid strike had negated its claim of good faith. If such a claim were to be upheld, it was not enough for the union to believe that the employer was guilty of unfair labor practice. It must also sufficiently show that the strike complied with the law.
Under the procedural requirements1Article 263 of the Labor Code specifies the limitations on the exercise of the right to strike, viz.:
Article 263. Strikes, picketing, and lockouts. . . .
xxx xxx xxx
(c) In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the employers may file a notice of lockout with the [Department] at least 30 days before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor practices, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting, where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately.
(d) The notice must be in accordance with such implementing rules and regulations as the [Secretary] of Labor and Employment may promulgate.
(e) During the cooling-off period, it shall be the duty of the [Department] to exert all efforts at mediation and conciliation to effect a voluntary settlement. Should the dispute remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days from the mandatory filing of the notice, the labor union may strike or the employer may declare a lockout.
(f) A decision to declare a strike must be approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret ballot in meetings or referenda called for that purpose. A decision to declare a lockout must be approved by a majority of the board of directors of the corporation or association or of the partners in a partnership, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose. The decision shall be valid for the duration of the dispute based on substantially the same grounds considered when the strike or lockout vote was taken. The [Department] may, at its own initiative or upon request of any affected party, supervise the conduct of the secret balloting. In every case, the union or the employer shall furnish the [Department] the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to the cooling-off period herein provided.
xxx xxx xxx for a valid strike, the following should be present:
- a notice of strike filed with the Department of Labor and Employment at least 30 days before the intended date thereof, or 15 days in case of unfair labor practices;
- a strike vote approved by the majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose; and
- a notice of the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike given to the Department of Labor and Employment.
These requirements are mandatory, such that non-compliance therewith by the union will render the strike illegal.
In the present case, the Court found that the employees failed to:
- file the notice of strike with the Department of Labor and Employment;
- observe the cooling-off period; and
- submit the result of the strike vote.
In addition, although the union conducted a strike vote, the same was done by open, not secret, balloting.
Significantly, the strike was far from orderly and peaceful. When the strike started, the union had on several instances obstructed the ingress into and egress from the employer’s offices. Record revealed evidence that depicted the acts of obstruction, violence and intimidation committed by the union during the picketing. Record even bared proof that the union forced the employer’s officers to resort to unusual means of gaining access into its premises at one point.
The Court concluded that although the claim of good faith may have attached in so far as the union’s grounds for the strike, the same cannot be said as regards its conduct of the strike. The union should therefore bear the consequence of its non-compliance with the legal requirements.
Further reading:
- Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp. Employees Union v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 156635, January 11, 2016.
