Union v. University of San Agustin
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The University of San Agustin (University) and its employees, represented by the University of San Agustin Employees' Union-FFW (Union), entered into a five-year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) on July 27, 2000. The CBA stipulated that its economic provisions would be effective for three years, up to 2003, and included a "no strike, no lockout" clause and a grievance machinery procedure culminating in voluntary arbitration. A dispute arose concerning the computation of Tuition Incremental Proceeds (TIP) for the school years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, leading to an impasse in negotiations. 2. Procedural History: The Union declared a bargaining deadlock and filed a notice of strike, which the University opposed, advocating for voluntary arbitration as per the CBA. The National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) did not resolve the University's motion. Subsequently, the parties jointly requested the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) to assume jurisdiction. The SOLE issued an Assumption of Jurisdiction Order (AJO) on September 18, 2003, enjoining any strike and directing the parties to submit position papers. Despite the AJO, the Union proceeded with a strike on September 19, 2003. The University filed a petition to declare the strike illegal and sought the loss of employment status for union officers. The SOLE, in a decision dated April 6, 2004, dismissed the petition to declare the strike illegal and resolved the economic issues. The University's motion for reconsideration was denied. The University then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA). 3. The Petition: The Court of Appeals, in a decision later amended, declared the strike illegal and the union officers deemed to have lost their employment status. It also directed the parties to refer the economic issues to voluntary arbitration, citing the CBA's provisions. The Union and its officers filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the CA's declaration of the strike's illegality and the consequent loss of employment status for the officers. They argued that the CA erred in not considering the totality of their conduct and in disregarding the SOLE's findings. They also contested the CA's directive to resort to voluntary arbitration for the economic issues, asserting the SOLE's broad jurisdiction over labor disputes.
Issue(s)
Whether the strike conducted by the petitioner Union on September 19, 2003, was illegal, and whether the union officers are deemed to have lost their employment status due to their participation in the strike. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in directing the parties to refer the economic issues of the labor dispute to voluntary arbitration.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Partially Amended Decision dated August 23, 2005, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85317 is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the illegality of the strike and loss of employment status: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the strike was illegal. The Assumption of Jurisdiction Order (AJO) issued by the SOLE automatically enjoined the strike. Despite attempts to serve the AJO, the Union officers refused to receive it, citing a board resolution, and proceeded with the strike. The Court emphasized that the sheriff's report, an official statement of duty performed, was not sufficiently controverted by the Union. The posting of the AJO on the University premises constituted valid service, and the Union's deliberate disregard of the AJO rendered the strike illegal. Consequently, the union officers who knowingly participated in the illegal strike were deemed to have lost their employment status. The Court rejected the Union's argument that a 24-hour period is given for strikers to return to work, citing Article 263(g) of the Labor Code which mandates immediate return to work upon assumption of jurisdiction. No specific ratio provided for the referral to voluntary arbitration. This issue would typically involve determining if the CA's decision aligns with established legal principles regarding the scope of voluntary arbitration in labor disputes. Without specific details, a general principle is that courts may order parties to submit to voluntary arbitration when the issues are primarily economic in nature and subject to such agreements or legal mandates.
Main Doctrine
A strike conducted in defiance of a Secretary of Labor and Employment's Assumption of Jurisdiction Order (AJO) is illegal, and union officers who knowingly participate in such an illegal strike are deemed to have lost their employment status. Furthermore, disputes arising from the interpretation or implementation of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), including bargaining deadlocks, should be resolved through the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as stipulated in the CBA, and not through a strike.