8/9/2019 Case Doctrines Strikes and Lockouts

1/5

LABOR RELATIONS CASEDOCTRINES RUBIO J.

2012

STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS

ABARIA VS. NLRC

- MCCHI vs the union- Union has no legal personalit.

Not !"l registere!- Union have conficts with its mother

union (NFL)

Not bein a !eitimate !abor orani"ation northe certi#e$ e%c!usive baraininre&resentative o' MCCHIs ran-an$-#!eem&!o*ees+ N,M,-MCCH-NFL cannot$eman$ 'rom MCCHI the riht to barainco!!ective!* in their beha!'./Hence+ MCCHIsre'usa! to barain then with N,M,-MCCH-NFL cannot be consi$ere$ an un'air !abor

&ractice to usti'* the stain o' the strie.

trie an$ &icetin activities con$ucte$ b*union o3cers an$ members were i!!ea!

,rt 24 (b) o' the Labor Co$e+ as amen$e$+&rovi$es5

,67 24 tries+ &icetin an$ !ocouts 8 %% %

(b) 9orers sha!! have the riht to enae in

concerte$ activities 'or &ur&oses o'co!!ective barainin or 'or their mutua!bene#t an$ &rotection 7he riht o'!eitimate !abor orani"ations to strie an$&icet an$ o' em&!o*ers to !ocout+consistent with the nationa! interest+ sha!!continue to be reconi"e$ an$ res&ecte$However+ no !abor union ma* strie an$ noem&!o*er ma* $ec!are a !ocout on roun$sinvo!vin inter-union an$ intra-union$is&utes

,s borne b* the recor$s+ N,M,-MCCH-NFLwas not a $u!* reistere$ or anin$e&en$ent!* reistere$ union at the time it#!e$ the notice o' strie on March 14+ 1::an$ when it con$ucte$ the strie vote on,&ri! 2+ 1:: It cou!$ not then !ea!!*re&resent the union membersConse;uent!*+ the man$ator* notice o'strie an$ the con$uct o' the strie votere&ort were ineoo ? o' the @mnibus 6u!es Im&!ementinthe Labor Co$e

#SS E$%LO#EES UNION VS. #SSLABORATORIES INC

- Com&an* vs union- Com&an* retrenche$ 11 em&!o*ees

- ec o' !abor assume$ uris$iction- &hat is the e'e(t o)

ass"*ption+- Can the ER (hoose ,ho is to -e

reinstate!+

Note5 art 24 ()

AIBt must be note$ that ,rtic!es 24 () an$2. o' the Labor Co$e have been enacte$&ursuant to the &o!ice &ower o' the tate+which has been $e#ne$ as the &owerinherent in a overnment to enact !aws+

within constitutiona! !imits+ to &romote theor$er+ sa'et*+ hea!th+ mora!s an$ enera!we!'are o' societ* 7he &o!ice &ower+toether with the &ower o' eminent $omainan$ the &ower o' ta%ation+ is an inherent&ower o' overnment an$ $oes not nee$ tobe e%&ress!* con'erre$ b* the Constitution %% %20

7he rant o' these &!enar* &owers to theecretar* o' Labor maes it incumbent u&onhim to brin about soonest+ a 'air an$ ust

so!ution to the $i

8/9/2019 Case Doctrines Strikes and Lockouts

2/5

LABOR RELATIONS CASEDOCTRINES RUBIO J.

2012

nationa! econom* 7he ecretar* o' Labor isa

8/9/2019 Case Doctrines Strikes and Lockouts

3/5

LABOR RELATIONS CASEDOCTRINES RUBIO J.

2012

wi$es&rea$ terrorism o' non-striers A'ore%am&!e+ &rohibite$ acts un$er ,rt 2.(e)o' the Labor Co$eB or

(/) Awhen itB is $ec!are$ in vio!ation o' ane%istin inunctionA+ such as inunction+

&rohibition+ or or$er issue$ b* the J@LEecretar* an$ the NL6C un$er ,rt 24 o'the Labor Co$eB or

() Awhen itB is contrar* to an e%istinareement+ such as a no-strie c!ause orconc!usive arbitration c!ause1K

&h is the strie illegal+

1 Committe$ with i!!ea! acts (shavintheir hea$s)

2 No strie+ no !ocout &o!ic* on thee%istin C>,4 havin their hea$s was a vio!ation

to their $ut* to barain co!!ective!*. ?io!ation o' 40 $a* coo!in o< an$

$a* strie ban/ I!!ea! acts such as 'ormin human

barrica$es an$ b!ocin the $rivewa*s

Conse6"en(es

6ear$in the Union o3cers an$ members!iabi!ities 'or their &artici&ation in the i!!ea!&icet an$ strie+ ,rt 2.(a)+ &arara&h 4 o'the Labor Co$e &rovi$es that G7a8n "niono9(er ,ho no,ingl parti(ipates inan illegal strie an! an ,orer or"nion o9(er ,ho no,inglparti(ipates in the (o**ission o)illegal a(ts !"ring a strie *a -e!e(lare! to ha/e lost his e*plo*entstat"s : : :G 7he !aw maes a $istinction

between union o3cers an$ mere unionmembers Union o3cers ma* be va!i$!*terminate$ 'rom em&!o*ment 'or their&artici&ation in an i!!ea! strie+ whi!e unionmembers have to &artici&ate in an$ commiti!!ea! acts 'or them to !ose theirem&!o*ment status 7hus+ it is necessar* 'orthe com&an* to a$$uce &roo' o' the&artici&ation o' the striin em&!o*ees in thecommission o' i!!ea! acts $urin the striesJACKBILT INDUSTRIES INC VS. JACKBILT

E$%LO#EES &ORKERS UNION2NA3LU2K$U

- construction crisis 1::+ E6tem&orar* shut$own

- EEs &roteste$+ strie$+ NL6C 76@+union $isrear$e$+ strie is $e#nite!*i!!ea!

- E6 $imisse$ EEs because o' the

i!!ea! strie+ L, he!$ E6 !iab!e 'ori!!ea! $ismissa! because it $i$ not#!e a &etition to $ec!are the striei!!ea!

%etition to !e(lare the strie illegal isnot ne(essar

The prin(iple o) (on(l"si/eness o)4"!g*ent+ embo$ie$ in ection .(c)+ 6u!e4: o' the 6u!es o' Court+2. ho!$s that the&arties to a case are boun$ b* the #n$insin a &revious u$ment with res&ect tomatters actua!!* raise$ an$ a$u$e$therein

Arti(le ;5o' the Labor Co$e &rohibitsan* &erson enae$ in &icetin 'romobstructin the 'ree inress to an$ eress'rom the em&!o*ers &remises inceres&on$ent was 'oun$ in the u!* 1+ 1::K$ecision o' the NL6C to have &revente$ the'ree entr* into an$ e%it o' vehic!es 'rom&etitioners com&oun$+ res&on$ents o3cersan$ em&!o*ees c!ear!* committe$ i!!ea!

acts in the course o' the March :+ 1::Kstrie)a*p+i)7he use o' un!aw'u! means inthe course o' a strie ren$ers such striei!!ea! 7here'ore+ &ursuant to the &rinci&!eo' conc!usiveness o' u$ment+ the March :+1::K strie was ipso facto i!!ea!. 7he #!ino' a &etition to $ec!are the strie i!!ea! wasthus unnecessar* Conse;uent!*+ we u&ho!$the !ea!it* o' the $ismissa! o' res&on$entso3cers an$ em&!o*ees ,rtic!e 2. o' theLabor Co$e 'urther &rovi$es that anem&!o*er ma* terminate em&!o*ees 'oun$to have committe$ i!!ea! acts in the course

o' a strie2KDetitioner c!ear!* ha$ the !ea!riht to terminate res&on$ents o3cers an$em&!o*ees.

A%A% VS. %AL

- Labor $is&ute+ union strie- ec o' !abor assume$ uris$iction+

return to wor or$er- Di!ots returne$ but a!rea$* &ast the

$ea$!ine as shown 'rom the !oboosine$ b* the &i!ots

Is there a nee! )or a ne, pro(ee!ing to!eter*ine ,ho shall -e ter*inate!

40 D a e

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_163942_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_171618_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_171618_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_171618_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_163942_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_171618_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_171618_2009.html#fnt28

8/9/2019 Case Doctrines Strikes and Lockouts

4/5

LABOR RELATIONS CASEDOCTRINES RUBIO J.

2012

-e(a"se o) )ail"re to ret"rn -a( to,or+ NO

"+ere is no necessity to conduct aproceedin to determine t+e participants int+e illeal stri-e or t+ose *+o refused to

+eed t+e return to *or- order because t+eambiuity can be cured by reference to t+ebody of t+e decision and t+e pleadinsled.)avvp+i)

, review o' the recor$s revea!s that in NCM>NC6 N 12-/1.-:+ the J@LE ecretar*$ec!are$ the ,LD,D o3cers an$ members tohave !ost their em&!o*ment status base$ oneither o' two roun$s+ vi"5 their &artici&ationin the i!!ea! strie on une /+ 1::K or their$e#ance o' the return-to-wor or$er o' the

J@LE ecretar* 7he recor$s o' the caseunvei! the names o' each o' these returnin&i!ots 7he !oboo with the hea$in G6eturn7o 9or Com&!iance 6eturneesG bears theirin$ivi$ua! sinature sini'*in theircon'ormit* that the* were amon thoseworers who returne$ to wor on!* on une2+ 1::K or a'ter the $ea$!ine im&ose$ b*J@LE From this crucia! an$ vita! &iece o'evi$ence+ it is a&&arent that each o' these&i!ots is boun$ b* the u$ment >esi$es+the com&!aint 'or i!!ea! !ocout was #!e$ onbeha!' o' a!! these returnees 7hus+ a #n$in

that there was no i!!ea! !ocout wou!$ been'orceab!e aainst them In #ne+ on!* thosereturnin &i!ots+ irres&ective o' whether the*com&rise the entire membershi& o' ,LD,D+are boun$ b* the une 1+ 1::: J@LE6eso!ution

7rue+ the $is&ositive &ortion o' the J@LE6eso!ution $oes not s&eci#ca!!* enumeratethe names o' those who actua!!*&artici&ate$ in the strie but on!* mentionsthat those striers who 'ai!e$ to hee$ thereturn-to-wor or$er are $eeme$ to have

!ost their em&!o*ment 7his omission+however+ cannot &revent an e

8/9/2019 Case Doctrines Strikes and Lockouts

5/5

LABOR RELATIONS CASEDOCTRINES RUBIO J.

2012

consi$erin that a strie was not arenunciation o' the em&!o*ment re!ation

,s a enera! ru!e+ bacwaes are rante$ toin$emni'* a $ismisse$ em&!o*ee 'or his !osso' earnins $urin the who!e &erio$ that he

is out o' his ob Consi$erin that an i!!ea!!*$ismisse$ em&!o*ee is not $eeme$ to have!e't his em&!o*ment+ he is entit!e$ to a!! therihts an$ &rivi!ees that accrue to him 'romthe em&!o*ment 7he rant o' bacwaes tohim is in 'urtherance an$ e