Situation One:

Your client, Regidor Biglang-awa approached you for help in filing a case at
the NLRC. He used to work for Compendium Corp. as a proof-reader/editor. He
was also an officer of the rank-and-file union in the company.

Sometime April 2020, the company, alleging severe business losses due to
the Covid-19 pandemic, started laying off employees. However, moderate
members of the Union and Non-members were told to apply with Minion, Inc., a
staffing agency so that they can still continue working.

You were convinced of the propriety of filing a case against Compendium

Corp. Thus you helped Mr. Biglang-awa filed a complaint for illegal termination
and unfair labor practices.

At the preliminary conference at the Labor Arbiter, Atty. Rowena

Walangwenta, appearing as counsel for Compendium Corp., justified the mass lay-
off due to the Covid19 pandemic. She further stated that contracting-out is not a
ULP per se as it is the intention that matters.
After two preliminary conferences with no compromise in sight, the Labor
Arbiter ordered the filing of position papers and whittled down the issues to the
following:

Situation Two:

Mr. Herminigildo Dimagmaliw, president of Pinagkaisang Kilusan ng

Innovent Workers (PINAKSIW), approached you for help in defending the union
at the NLRC. Their employer, Lectern Chosen, Inc. (LECHON) filed a complaint
for an illegal strike.

It started when LECHON started singling out union officers for dismissal
after several attempts to renew the CBA. With the threat of their right to organize
on the line, the union resolved to strike after observing all the legal requisites.

Last 19 June 2019, while they were on the picket line, violence erupted
between the strikers and the security personnel hired by the company. Due to the
said violence, LECHON filed a complaint for illegal strike against the union at the
NLRC.

During the course of your investigation into this case, you came across a
police report of this incident, with the following excerpts:

“Investigation into the violence that erupted at the picket line of striking
PINAKSIW workers within the AOR of this office revealed the following:

December 13, 2017

G.R. No. 195163

ERGONOMIC SYSTEMS PIIlLIPPINES, INC., PHILLP C. NG and MA. LOURMINDA O.

NG, Petitioners
vs.
EMERITO C. ENAJE

A strike is deemed illegal for

failure to take a strike vote and
to submit a report thereon to
the NCMB.

A strike is the most powerful weapon of workers in their struggle with management in the course of
setting their terms and conditions of employment. As such, it either breathes life to or destroys the
union and its members. 29

Procedurally, for a strike to be valid, it must comply with Article 278  of the Labor Code, which
30

requires that: (a) a notice of strike be filed with the NCMB 30 days before the intended date thereof,
or 15 days in case of unfair labor practice; (b) a strike vote be approved by a majority of the total
union membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for
that purpose; and (c) a notice be given to the NCMB of the results of the voting at least seven days
before the intended strike. These requirements are mandatory, and the union's failure to comply
renders the strike illegal. 31

The union filed a notice of strike on 20 February 2002.  The strike commenced on 21 February
32

2002.  The strike vote was taken on 2 April 2002  and the report thereon was submitted to the
33 34

NCMB on 4 April 2002.  Indeed, the first requisite or the cooling-off period need not be observed
35

when the ground relied upon for the conduct of strike is unionbusting.  Nevertheless, the second and
36

third requirements are still mandatory. In this case, it is apparent that the union conducted a strike
without seeking a strike vote and without submitting a report thereon to the DOLE. Thus, the strike
which commenced on 21 February 2002 was illegal.