Golden v. Norton & Harrison Co.
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a labor case where striking employees of Jackbilt Concrete Block Co., Inc. and Norton & Harrison Co. sought reinstatement. A previous Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. L-18461 ordered the reinstatement of these strikers without backwages, finding that while the employees acted in good faith believing unfair labor practices occurred, the companies were ultimately absolved of such charges. The Court noted that the dismissal of one employee without a fair hearing contributed to the employees' belief, but this act alone did not constitute unfair labor practice. 2. Procedural History: Following the Supreme Court's decision in G.R. No. L-18461, the companies filed a motion for clarification, citing plant modernization and automation that reduced their workforce, making the reinstatement of all 170 strikers impossible. The Supreme Court denied this motion, directing the companies to present these issues to the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for execution of the judgment, without amending the original decision. Subsequently, the union filed motions with the CIR seeking reinstatement and backwages for strikers who presented themselves for work on September 7, 1967, but were not admitted. The CIR issued several orders directing the companies to reinstate listed strikers, with varying degrees of compliance and subsequent issues regarding medical fitness and continued employment. Ultimately, the CIR issued an order on December 28, 1973, awarding backwages to the strikers from September 7, 1967, until their ordered reinstatement, and a subsequent resolution en banc on July 31, 1974, denied the companies' motion for reconsideration, confirming the award of backwages and other reliefs. 3. The Petition: These petitions for review on certiorari challenge the December 28, 1973 order and the July 31, 1974 resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations. The petitioners argue that the CIR erred in awarding backwages, as the Supreme Court's prior decision explicitly denied them. They contend the CIR exceeded its authority by amending the Supreme Court's judgment and by failing to make findings on the alleged operational changes that impacted reinstatement feasibility. Furthermore, they argue the CIR erred in granting additional time for strikers who failed to report for work and in awarding separation pay to those found medically unfit, asserting that their employment was not terminated. The petitioners seek to set aside the CIR's awards of backwages, the extended period for reporting back to work, and the grant of separation pay.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Industrial Relations erred in ordering the payment of backwages to the strikers. Whether the Court of Industrial Relations erred in granting a further period for strikers who did not comply with reinstatement orders to report for work. Whether the Court of Industrial Relations erred in granting separation pay to strikers found unfit for work due to illness.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the order and resolution of the CIR insofar as the award of backwages, the grant of another period for strikers to report back for work, and the grant of separation pay are concerned. However, it directed the petitioners to reinstate strikers found unfit for work upon presentation of a certification of physical fitness from a government physician.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of backwages: The Court held that the CIR exceeded its authority by awarding backwages, which amended the Supreme Court's prior decision in G.R. No. L-18461 that explicitly ordered reinstatement without backwages. The prior decision was based on the absence of a finding of unfair labor practice by the companies, and the strike was considered in good faith only to allow for reinstatement, not backwages. The CIR's role was to execute the judgment, not to amend it, especially since there was no unjust refusal to reinstate. The Court noted that enforcing reinstatement despite uncontroverted automation and modernization would be exacting compliance with the impossible. The prior reinstatement orders from the CIR, which did not award backwages and were not questioned, had become final. On the issue of granting another period for strikers to report: The Court ruled that strikers who failed to report for work without proper justification, despite reinstatement orders, forfeited their right to reinstatement. Their unexplained failure to request an extension or report for work indicated a lack of interest. The Court cited East Asiatic Co., Ltd., et al. vs. CIR, et al., holding that failure to report for work when an opportunity existed waives the right to reinstatement. These strikers were deemed to have forfeited their right due to apparent lack of interest and failure to report for work without justifiable reason. On the issue of separation pay: The Court sustained the petitioners' view that the CIR erred in granting separation pay to strikers found unfit for work due to tuberculosis and other illnesses. The services of these strikers were not terminated; they were advised to report back upon recovery and certification of fitness. The Termination Pay Law (R.A. No. 1052, as amended) requires separation pay only in cases of dismissal or termination without just cause. Here, the companies were absolved of unfair labor practice, and the strikers' physical condition at the time of reporting back was not proven. The Court reiterated that an employer should not be compelled to reinstate an employee no longer physically fit, but such an employee can be reinstated upon securing a certification of fitness from a government physician. The CIR's grant of separation pay in lieu of recall was deemed an error.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Industrial Relations exceeded its authority in awarding backwages and separation pay, as this amended the Supreme Court's prior decision ordering reinstatement without backwages. Strikers who failed to report for work without justification forfeited their right to reinstatement. Separation pay is not due to strikers found unfit for work due to illness, as their employment was not terminated but merely suspended pending recovery and certification of fitness.