G.R. No.

163942; November 11, 2008; NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL RESTAURANT AND
ALLIED INDUSTRIES (NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF) DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO CHAPTER, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS (Former Eighth Division), THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC),
PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS INC., owner and operator of DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO and/or CHIYUKI FUJIMOTO, and
ESPERANZA V. ALVEZ, respondents. & G.R. No. 166295; November 11, 2008 NUWHRAIN-DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO
CHAPTER, petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS,
INC., respondents.; VELASCO, JR., J.:

FACTS:
 National Union of Workers in the Hotel and Restaurant and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF) of the
Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter (Union): certified bargaining agent of the RF employees of Dusit Nikko Hotel.
 Dusit Nikko Hotel: owned and operated by Philippine Hoteliers Inc.
 Chiyuki Fujimoto and Esperanza Alvez:Hotel’s General Manager and Dir. Of Human Resources

 Oct. 24, 2000 – Union submitted its CBA negotiation proposals to the Hotel. Parties however failed to arrive
at mutually accepted terms and conditions hence a deadlock
 Dec. 20, 2001 – Union filed a Notice of strike with the NCMB. Conciliation hearings were conducted but were
unsuccessful . A strike vote was conducted and the Union decided to wage a strike.
 Jan. 17, 2002 – Union held a general assembly at the Hotel Basement (members sported cropped/cleanly
shaven heads). More male Union members came to work the next day with the same hair style. The Hotel
prevented them from entering (violation of Hotel’s Grooming Standards)
o Union staged a picket outside the Hotel. The Hotel also experienced severe lack of manpower which
forced them to temporarily cease 3 restaurant operations
 Jan. 20, 2002 – Hotel suspended the Union members, preventively suspending them and charging them with
offenses. The Union filed a second Notice of Strike with NCMB ( ULP and violation of A248(a) on Illegal
Lockout)
 Jan 26, 2002 – Hotel terminated 29 Union officers and 61 members and suspended 81 employees for 30
days, 48 for 15 days, 4 for 10 days and 3 for 5 days. The Union again went on strike
 Jan 31, 2002 – 3rd Notice of Strike (ULDP and union-busting). Secretary of labor assumed jurisdiction over the
dispute giving the Hotel an option to merely reinstate the dismissed or suspended workers
 Feb. 1, 2002 – Hotel issued an Inter-Office Memo directing some of the employees to return to work
 NLRC – Illegal strike which violated the “No Strike, No Lockout” provision of the CBA (failed to comply with
the mandatory 30-day cooling-off period and the seven-day strike ban,)
 CA – affirmed NLRC

ISSUE: WON the Union conducted an illegal strike

HELD: YES
 The Court discussed the 6 categories of an illegal strike according to Ludwig Teller and how the acts of the Union met
the requisites:
1. [when it] is contrary to a specific prohibition of law, such as strike by employees performing governmental functions; or
2. [when it] violates a specific requirement of law[, such as Article 263 of the Labor Code on the requisites of a valid
strike]; or
3. [when it] is declared for an unlawful purpose, such as inducing the employer to commit an unfair labor practice against
non-union employees; or
4. [when it] 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. [when it] 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. [when it] is contrary to an existing agreement, such as a no-strike clause or conclusive arbitration clause

Consequent liabilities of the Union officers and members for their participation in the illegal strike
 Art. 264(a), paragraph 3 of the Labor Code provides that "[a]ny union officer who knowingly participates in
an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal
acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status x x x."
 Distinction between union officers and mere union members. Union officers may be validly terminated
from employment for their participation in an illegal strike, while union members have to participate in and
 commit illegal acts for them to lose their employment status. Thus, it is necessary for the company to adduce
proof of the participation of the striking employees in the commission of illegal acts during the strikes.
 29 Union officers – may be dismissed pursuant to A. 264(a) par. 3 which imposes the penalty of dismissal on
“any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike." But there’s room for leniency with
respect to Union members.
o Hotel proved that the strikers blocked the ingress to and egress from the Hotel. But it failed to point
out the participation of each of the Union members in the commission of the illegal acts. Hence the
61 members should be reinstated.
 Union members who participated in an illegal strike but were not identified to have committed illegal acts
are entitled to be reinstated to their former positions but without backwages. Hence. The 61 members
should be reinstated without backwages