Seamen's Union v. Davao Shipowners
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner United Seamen's Union of the Philippines (USUP) presented demands to respondent Davao Shipowners Association (Shipowners) for union recognition, union security, and improved benefits. The Shipowners pointed to an existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Davao Marine Association (Association) and suggested USUP seek certification as the bargaining agent. USUP filed a notice of strike before receiving the Shipowners' answer. Subsequently, USUP, the Shipowners, and the Association executed a covenant agreeing to withdraw the notice to strike, preserve the status quo, and for USUP to file a petition for certification election. Thereafter, respondent shipping companies issued notices of termination to 64 employees, effective December 31, 1959, citing reasons such as business losses. USUP reported this to the Department of Labor and threatened to strike on January 1, 1960. The Shipowners filed a petition for injunction, alleging coercion and violence. USUP filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) case, alleging interference with the right to self-organization and discrimination due to the dismissals. Procedural History: The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) heard the injunction and ULP cases jointly. On October 31, 1960, the CIR dismissed USUP's ULP complaint, dismissed the claim for moral damages for want of jurisdiction, declared the strike illegal and unjustified, decreed the dismissal of active participants, and granted a permanent injunction against USUP and its representatives. The Petition: USUP sought review of the CIR's decision, primarily questioning whether the CIR gravely abused its discretion in declaring the strike illegal and unjustified.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Industrial Relations gravely abused its discretion in declaring the strike staged by the members of the USUP unjustified and illegal. Whether the termination of services of the employees constituted a violation of the August 20 covenant. Whether the strike was illegal due to the means employed in carrying it out.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations, holding that the strike staged by the USUP was illegal and unjustified, and the permanent injunction was proper. The Court dismissed the petition for review.
Ratio Decidendi
On the illegality and unjustified nature of the strike: The Court found that the strike was the culmination of USUP's unsuccessful effort to be recognized as the sole collective bargaining agent, despite an existing CBA with the Association. USUP filed its notice of strike even before receiving the Shipowners' response, indicating a predisposition to strike regardless of the outcome of negotiations. This was done with awareness of the existing CBA, which legally barred the Shipowners from entertaining USUP's demands for recognition as the sole bargaining agent. Furthermore, USUP disturbed the status quo agreed upon in the August 20 covenant by going on strike pending the resolution of its certification election petition. This action impaired the existing CBA between the Shipowners and the Association, which bound the striking members. The Court noted that the Shipowners were not principal parties to the covenant, their role being limited to giving conformity to the preservation of the status quo and USUP's commitment to seek a certification election. Even if the Shipowners were bound, the dismissals were predicated on legitimate reasons, such as sustained losses and the decommissioning of vessels, as found by the CIR after exhaustive evidence. The Court also emphasized that the employees, as members of the Association, were bound by the CBA and its grievance procedure, which they failed to utilize before resorting to a strike. The Court reiterated that strikes held in violation of the terms of a CBA, especially those with conclusive arbitration clauses, are illegal. The employees disregarded the graduated procedure for dispute settlement, immediately going on strike without exhausting the grievance mechanism. On the alleged violation of the August 20 covenant by the Shipowners: The Court found it doubtful that the Shipowners violated the covenant. The covenant's commitments primarily fell upon USUP and the Association. The Shipowners' role was limited to giving conformity to the agreement to preserve the status quo and USUP's commitment to have the CIR determine union representation. The covenant was essentially bilateral between USUP and the Association, imposing no definite binding obligation on the Shipowners. Even assuming the Shipowners were bound, the termination of services was not considered a violation. The CIR found that dismissals were based on legitimate reasons, such as sustained losses in operating a vessel (MERCURY), the decommissioning and sale of a vessel, and the dissolution of a company due to a partner's death. These actions were deemed legitimate exercises of management prerogative under the CBA, which allowed for hiring, promotion, transfer, suspension, lay-off, or discharge for legal cause, subject to notification to the union (Association). The notices of termination were addressed to the crewmen as members of the Association, not as USUP unionists. On the means employed during the strike: The Court found that even if the purpose of the strike were valid, the means employed were illegitimate. The strike involved blocking access to vessels, obstructing loading and unloading operations through a human cordon and acts of violence, and taking possession of the Shipowners' vessels without consent. Strikers committed acts of intimidation, coercion, and violence, including physical injuries to stevedores attempting to unload cargo, challenging owners to fights, preventing crew members from performing their duties, and physically assaulting an employee. These acts continued even after the expiration of a temporary injunction. The Court noted that the factual findings of the CIR regarding these acts were supported by substantial evidence and corroborated by witnesses, including law enforcement officials, and were not questioned by the petitioner. The Court cited numerous authorities holding that strikes involving violence, coercion, physical injuries, and sabotage are illegal and cannot be justified, as they encourage abuses and terrorism and subvert the purpose of peaceful labor dispute settlement.
Main Doctrine
A strike staged in violation of a collective bargaining agreement, particularly its grievance procedure, and characterized by acts of violence, coercion, and obstruction of business operations, is illegal and unjustified. Dismissal of active participants in such an illegal strike is permissible.