INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. vs. INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO G.R. No.

L-25291 January 30, 1971

FACTS:
the Insular Life Assurance CO., Ltd., Employees Association - NATU, FGU Insurance Group Workers and
Employees Association - NATU, and Insular Life Building Employees Association - NATU (herein referred to
as the Unions), while still members of FFW, entered into separate CBAs with the Insular Life Assurance Co.,
Ltd., and the FGU Insurance Group (herein referred to as the Companies).
Two of the lawyers and officers of the Unions Felipe Enaje and Ramon Gacia tried to dissuade the Unions
from disaffiliating with the FFW and joining NATU, to no avail. Enaje and Garcia soon left the FFW and
secured employment with the Anti-Dummy Board of the DOJ and were thereafter hires by the companies
- Garcia as assistant corporate secretary and legal assistant, and Enaje as personnel manager and chairman
of the negotiating panel of the Companies in the collective bargaining with the Unions.
On October 1957, negotiations for the collective bargaining was conducted but resulted in a deadlock.
From April 25 to May 6, 1958, the parties negotiated on the labor demands but with no satisfactory results
due to the stalemate on the matter of salary increases. This prompted the Unions to declare a strike in
protest against what they considered the Companies' unfair labor practices. On May 20, 1958, the Unions
went on strike and picketed the offices of the Insular Life Building at Plaza Moraga.
On May 21, Jose M. Obles, the acting manager and president, sent individual letters to the striking
employees urging them to abandon their strike with a promise of free coffee, movies, overtime pay, and
accommodations. He also warned the strikers if they fail to return to work by a certain date, they might
be replaced in their jobs. Further, the companies hired men to break into the picket lines resulting in
violence, and the filing of criminal charges against some union officers and members. When eventually,
the strikers called off their strike to return to their jobs, they were subjected to a screening process by a
management committee, among the members were Garcia and Enaje. After screening, 83 strikers were
rejected due to pending criminal charges, and adamantly refused re-admission of 34 officials and members
of the Unions who were most active in the strike.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the companies are guilty of unfair labor practice when they sent individual letters to the
strikers with the promise of additional benefits, and notifying them to either return to work or lose their
jobs.
HELD:
The companies contended that by sending those letters, it constituted a legitimate exercise of their
freedom of expression. That contention is untenable. The companies are guilty of unfair labor practice
when they sent individual letters to the strikers. It is an act of interference with the right to collective
bargaining through dealing with the strikers individually instead of through their collective bargaining
representatives. Although the unions are on strike, the employer is still obligated to bargain with the union
as the employees' bargaining representative. Further, it is also an act of interference for the employer to
send individual letters to the employees notifying them to return to their jobs, otherwise, they would be
replaced. Individual solicitation of the employees urging them to cease union activity or cease striking
consists of unfair labor practice. furthermore, when the companies offered to "bribe" the strikers with
"comfortable cots, free coffee, and movies, overtime work pay" so they would abandon their strike and
return to work, it was guilty of strike-breaking and/or union busting which constitute unfair labor practice.