9:13 R'O4 El

x @ Soriano Aviation Vs Employees | PDF | Strike Ac... et

scribd.com

Case Name: A. SORIANO AVIATION, petitioner, vs. EMPLOYEES

ASSOCIATION OF A. SORIANO AVIATION
G.R. Number: 166879

Topic: Strikes Author: Byron Yao

Doctrine: While the strike is the most preeminent economic weapon of workers to
force management to agree to an equitable sharing of the joint product of labor and
capital, it exerts some disquieting effects not only on the relationship between
labor
and management, but also on the general peace and progress of society and
economic well-being of the State. If such weapon has to be used at all, it must be
used sparingly and within the bounds of law in the interest of industrial peace and
public welfare.
Facts:
e A. Soriano Aviation, engaged in providing transportation of guests to and from
Amanpulo and El Nido Resorts in Palawan, and the Union entered into a CBA
which included a “no-strike, no lock-out clause”.

¢ 8 members of the Union refused to render overtime work on May | & 12, and June
12, 1997 (legal holidays and peak season).

¢ A. Soriano Aviation treated the refusal to work as a concerted action which is a

violation of the No Strike, No Lock-out Clause in the CBA and thus suspended the
workers for 30 days, and filed a complaint for illegal strike against them.

Said complaint was dismissed to give way for settlement but it turned out futile so
the Union filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board attributing to the company — union busting, illegal dismissal of union
officer,
harassment through systematic fault-finding, to name a few.

¢ No amicable settlement was arrived at so the Union went on strike. A. Soriano

Aviation filed a motion to re-open the case for illegal strike.

¢ Labor Arbiter- that the newly implemented work-shift schedule was a valid
exercise of management prerogative and the refusal of the workers to work on 3
consecutive holidays was a form of concerted action; as Union failed to comply
with formal requirements in holding a strike, said strike was illegal
¢ NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA.

¢ 8 months into second strike, A. Soriano Aviation filed a complaint to declare the
strike illegal on account of pervasive use of violence such as publicly shouting
foul
words to company officers and non-striking employees, before LA.

¢ Labor Arbiter- 2" trike was deemed illegal for use of violent acts. Union went on
first strike on strikeable issue, it violated the CBA clause.

¢ NLRC affirmed the LA. Even if strike were legal, commission of unlawful acts
rendered it illegal.

A- reversed, acts of violence were not as pervasive to call for loss of employment
of striking employees

* A, Soriano Aviation argues that questioned acts of the strikers \

character, widespread and pervasive, and prolonged strike resulted in termination
of lease and air service contract with Amanpulo and decision of El Nido to put up
own aviation compan:

¢ — Strike should be declared illegal on the violation of the No-Strike-No-Lockout

clause in the CBA as it arose from non-strikeable issues

re of a serious