Case Name: Fadriquelan v.
Monterey - “The law is explicit: no strike shall be declared after the Secretary
G.R. Number: GR 178409
Topic: Strikes, Lockouts and Author: JJ
Concerted Actions
Doctrine: The law is explicit: no strike shall be declared after the
Secretary of Labor has assumed jurisdiction over a labor dispute. A
strike conducted after such assumption is illegal and any union
officer who knowingly participates in the same may be declared as
having lost his employment.
Facts: - The CBA between the Union and the Company expired.
- The negotiations for a new CBA reached a deadlock, Union filed a
notice of strike with the NCMB. In response, the Company filed
with the DOLE a petition for assumption of jurisdiction over the
dispute.
-SOLE assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and enjoined the union
from holding any strike. Likewise, It also directed the union and the
company to desist from taking any action that may aggravate the
situation.
-Despite the Order, the Union filed a SECOND notice of strike,
alleging that the Company committed ULP. The Company sent
notices that the Union officers are committing intentional acts of
slowdown, this was then followed by notices of termination for
defying the SOLE Order.
- The Union then filed A THIRD notice of strike for the alleged union
busting acts of the Company and for illegal dismissal of union
officers.
- DOLE rendered a decision upholding the termination of the 17
Union officers.
- On appeal, CA declared that 10 union officers were validly
dismissed while the other 7’s dismissal was illegal.
Issue: WON the strikes conducted were sufficient ground for
termination of the some of the Union officers - YES
WON the dismissal of the Union Officers were proper – Some Yes,
others NO
Held/Ratio:
of Labor has assumed jurisdiction over a labor dispute. A strike
conducted after such assumption is illegal and any union officer
who knowingly participates in the same may be declared as
having lost his employment.” Here, what is involved is a slowdown
strike. Unlike other forms of strike, the employees involved in a
slowdown do not walk out of their jobs to hurt the company. They
need only to stop work or reduce the rate of their work while
generally remaining in their assigned post.
The Court finds that the union officers and members in this case
held a slowdown strike at the company’s farms despite the fact
that the DOLE Secretary had on May 12, 2003 already assumed
jurisdiction over their labor dispute.
The SC gave no credence to the argument of the Union that it was
merely holding meetings when such meetings were done during
their time of work and the meetings were all done at the same time
and day among the different branches of the Company’s plants.
“Between the ordinary workers’ liability for illegal strike and that of
the union officers who participated in it. The ordinary worker
cannot be terminated for merely participating in the strike. There
must be proof that he committed illegal acts during its conduct.
On the other hand, a union officer can be terminated upon mere
proof that he knowingly participated in the illegal strike.”
In this case, some of the Union officers were proven to have been
involved in the strike while for the others, like that of the Union
president, insufficient proof was provided to show that they indeed
participated in the strike.