Consolidated Labor Association of the Phils. v. Marsman
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns an unfair labor practice charge filed by the Consolidated Labor Association of the Philippines (CLAP) against Marsman and Co., Inc. (the Company). The charge stemmed from the Company's refusal to reinstate sixty-nine officers and members of the Marsman & Company Employees and Laborers Association (MARCELA) after a strike. The Company was found guilty by the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), which ordered the reinstatement of sixty of the complainants without back wages. 2. Procedural History: The Company was initially charged with unfair labor practice before the CIR, which found it guilty and ordered the reinstatement of sixty employees. Upon motions for reconsideration by both the Union and the Company, the CIR en banc affirmed the decision. Both the Union and the Company appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The Union sought backpay for the reinstated employees, while the Company challenged the finding of unfair labor practice. 3. The Petition: The Consolidated Labor Association of the Philippines (CLAP), as petitioner in G.R. No. L-17038, seeks backpay for the sixty employees ordered reinstated by the Court of Industrial Relations. Marsman and Co., Inc., as petitioner in G.R. No. L-17057, questions the Industrial Court's finding of unfair labor practice and its order for reinstatement. Both petitions are before the Supreme Court for review of the CIR's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the strike, initially economic, was converted into an unfair labor practice strike. Whether the Company committed unfair labor practice by refusing to reinstate the sixty-nine complainants. Whether the Company's refusal to reinstate was due to economic reasons or to discourage union activities. Whether the individual illegal acts of some strikers justified the denial of reinstatement to all other strikers. Whether the reinstated employees are entitled to backpay.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, ordering the reinstatement of the sixty complainants without back wages. The Court found that the Company committed unfair labor practice by refusing to reinstate the sixty-nine complainants due to their union activities. However, it denied backpay, considering the climate of violence during the strike and the fact that some strikers were convicted of criminal offenses.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conversion of the strike to an unfair labor practice strike: The Court held that the strike, initially economic, changed its character when the Company refused to reinstate complainants because of their union activities after having offered to admit all strikers and having readmitted others. This refusal transformed the strike into an unfair labor practice strike, as the Company's actions were aimed at discouraging union activities. On the commission of unfair labor practice: Substantial evidence supported the CIR's finding that the Company committed unfair labor practice. The testimony of several complainants indicated that the Company's vice-president offered to take back all strikers, which was accepted. The subsequent refusal to reinstate the sixty-nine complainants, despite their compliance with the Company's requirement for individual applications, and the fact that other strikers were readmitted, demonstrated discriminatory treatment based on union membership. On the reason for refusal to reinstate: The Court rejected the Company's claim of economic reasons and retrenchment policy. This was disproved by the fact that the Company readmitted other strikers, hired new employees, and even increased the salaries of its personnel. The Court was convinced that the denial of readmittance was motivated by a desire to discourage union activities, constituting an indubitable case of unfair labor practice. On the effect of individual illegal acts of strikers: While acknowledging that the Company could not condone the criminal acts committed by nine of the complainants, the Court ruled that these individual acts, which were not shown to be authorized or impliedly sanctioned by the Union, should not penalize all other innocent strikers. The Court reiterated the principle that only those found guilty of illegal acts should be penalized by the loss of their right of reinstatement. On the entitlement to backpay: The Court affirmed the denial of backpay. In an economic strike, strikers are not entitled to backpay. Even after the strike was converted to an unfair labor practice strike, the Court found that the CIR did not abuse its discretion in denying back wages, considering the climate of violence that attended the strike and picket, and the fact that some strikers were convicted of criminal offenses.
Main Doctrine
An economic strike can be converted into an unfair labor practice strike when the employer refuses to reinstate strikers due to their union activities, even if the employer had offered to admit all strikers back to work. However, individual acts of violence committed by some strikers do not justify the denial of reinstatement to all other innocent strikers.