Shell Oil Workers' Union v. Shell Company of the Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Supreme Court's decision of May 31, 1971, upheld the validity of a strike conducted by the Shell Oil Workers' Union, reversing a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations. The respondent, Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd., filed a motion for reconsideration. Procedural History: The Court of Industrial Relations had previously ruled the strike illegal. The Supreme Court, in its initial decision, reversed this ruling. The Petition: The respondent company sought reconsideration of the Supreme Court's decision, arguing that failure to abide by a collective bargaining agreement should not be considered an unfair labor practice, and that the decision would justify violence. Alternatively, the company sought to deny reinstatement to twelve union officers, terminate the employee status of five specific individuals for committing serious acts of violence, and deny backpay to seventeen security guards.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure to abide by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement constitutes an unfair labor practice. Whether a strike, otherwise valid, can be rendered illegal due to violence. Whether the employee status of specific individuals should be terminated due to acts of violence. Whether the twelve officers of the Union and the seventeen security guards are entitled to reinstatement.
Ruling
The motion for reconsideration is denied. The decision of May 31, 1971, is reiterated in all respects, with a modification that the employee status of Nestor Samson, Jose Rey, Romeo Rosales, Sesinando Romero, and Antonio Labrador is deemed terminated.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the failure to abide by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement constitutes an unfair labor practice: The Court reiterated that it is well-established that the failure to abide by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement constitutes an unfair labor practice. This ruling is consistent with previous decisions of the Court dating back to 1967, citing Republic Savings Bank v. Court of Industrial Relations, Security Bank Employees Union v. Security Bank and Trust Company, Manila Hotel Company v. Pines Hotel Employees Association, and Alhambra Industries, Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations. The Court emphasized that such a contention is "much too late in the day" to be advanced. On whether a strike, otherwise valid, can be rendered illegal due to violence: The Court clarified that while a strike is a legitimate concerted activity for economic demands or to compel an employer to cease an unfair labor practice, the utilization of force to attain such objectives is disapproved. A strike that is violent in character may be placed beyond the pale of legality. However, the Court cautioned against stamping a strike with illegality merely because it is tainted by acts of violence, especially when an unfair labor practice is involved. In such cases, responsibility for violence should be individual and not collective, unless the existence of force is pervasive and widespread, consistently and deliberately resorted to as a matter of policy. The Court noted that its previous decision did not justify violence but rather cautioned against rendering the right to strike illusory by imposing collective responsibility for individual acts. On whether the employee status of specific individuals should be terminated due to acts of violence: The Court found merit in the respondent company's plea for the termination of employee status for five individuals. The Court reappraised the evidence and found that Nestor Samson's actions constituted serious violence, as did the concerted actions of Jose Rey, Romeo Rosales, Sesinando Romero, and Antonio Labrador against company personnel, resulting in hospitalization and significant injury. These acts were deemed of such magnitude as to warrant the loss of employee status. On whether the twelve officers of the Union and the seventeen security guards are entitled to reinstatement: The Court affirmed that the reinstatement of the twelve officers of the Union, who were dismissed merely for being officers, and the reinstatement of the security guards were logical and legal consequences of the Court's decision upholding the strike's validity. The Court reiterated its stance that a good faith belief by labor that an unfair labor practice has been committed is sufficient to justify a strike, and it is not even required that an unfair labor practice be actually committed. The Court cited its previous pronouncements that a strike called to offset what labor was warranted in believing in good faith to be unfair labor practices is not illegal, and the strikers do not lose their employee status.
Main Doctrine
A strike, even if valid as to its ends, may be rendered illegal if the violence employed is pervasive, widespread, and consistently resorted to as a matter of policy. However, responsibility for violence should be individual, not collective, unless the violence is pervasive and deliberate as a policy. A good faith belief by labor that an unfair labor practice has been committed is sufficient to justify a strike.