Union v. Court of Industrial Relations
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case involves a motion for reconsideration filed by the union regarding a previous decision of the Supreme Court. The original decision ruled that both discriminatorily dismissed employees and those who strike due to unfair labor practices are entitled to reinstatement, except for those guilty of violence, misconduct, or who have found subsequent employment. Regarding backwages, only discriminatorily dismissed employees were held entitled, unless strikers offer to return under original conditions and are refused or offered discriminatory new conditions. Procedural History: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations. The Petition: The union filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that the Court of Industrial Relations had no discretion to award half backwages and should have ordered full backpay, and that strikers protesting unfair labor practices should be given backwages.
Issue(s)
Whether the union's contention regarding the award of backwages is a new issue not raised in the original proceedings. Whether strikers protesting unfair labor practices are entitled to backwages when the company refused to take them back except under specific conditions. Whether the notice given by the company was a mere tactical threat. Whether the laborers should have been ordered reinstated despite minor misdemeanors.
Ruling
The motion for reconsideration is denied. The Court reiterated its previous ruling on reinstatement and backwages, finding no merit in the union's arguments.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of new arguments: The Court noted that the point regarding the award of half backwages was being raised for the first time in the motion for reconsideration, which is generally not allowed under Section 7 of Rule 51, unless it is a plain or clerical error, which this is not. The Court also pointed out that the salesmen were not entirely justified in refusing to turn over collections, and awarding half backwages is not unprecedented. On the entitlement of strikers to backwages: The Court clarified that voluntary strikers, even if protesting unfair labor practices, are only entitled to backpay if they abandon the strike, apply for reinstatement under the original conditions, and the employer either refuses or imposes new discriminatory conditions. In this case, the strikers insisted on the company's observance of the collective bargaining agreement, which was the very reason for the strike, thus they did not abandon their strike. The Court distinguished the present case from the American Manufacturing Co. case, where strikers were awarded backpay because their employer imposed discriminatory new conditions upon their return. On the notice given by the company: The Court stated that if the strikers had a right to reinstatement, any notice of dismissal could not negate that right and would merely be a tactical threat. On the reinstatement of employees with minor misdemeanors: The Court reiterated that it is within the discretion of the Court of Industrial Relations to determine the seriousness of misconduct and whether it justifies denial of reinstatement. The Supreme Court will only intervene in cases of abuse of discretion. The Court also noted that reinstating employees who have found other employment would negate the policy of the law, and the union failed to prove any abuse of discretion by the lower court.
Main Doctrine
Employees discriminatorily dismissed and those who strike due to employer's unfair labor practice are entitled to reinstatement, with exceptions for violence or misconduct. Only discriminatorily dismissed employees are entitled to backpay, unless strikers offer to return under original conditions and are refused or offered discriminatory new conditions.