Author: Carlo Africa
Phimco Industries v Phimco Industries Labor Assoc HELD: Yes. Since strikes affect not only the labor and management
Petition:Certiorari
Petitioner:Phimco Industries
Respondent:Phimco Industries Labor Assoc (PILA)
DOCTRINE: Despite the validity of the purpose of a strike and
compliance with the procedural requirements, a strike may still be held
illegal where the means employed are illegal (moving picket).
FACTS:
1. Phimco, engaged in the production of matches in Sta. Ana, Manila
had a CBA with PILA. When it was about to expire, they negotiated
until it reached a bargaining deadlock on salary increases and
benefits.
2. PILA filed a Notice of strike with NCMB. After 7 days, the Union
conducted a strike vote. Majority of the members voted to strike and
the results were submitted to the NCMB. After 35 days, PILA staged
a strike.
3. PILA complied with the statutory requirement prior to a strike but
Phimco was still able to secure a TRO from NLRC.
4. Despite the TRO, PILA members still continued to strike. It was
deemed as a moving picket.
Strikers held hands-to-shoulder, while marching around
company premises.
They moved in circles in front of the gates, preventing free
egress in the area and places benches in the gates, causing
traffic.
Several company workers were prevented from entering the
workplace despite assistance from the police.
5. Because of this, Phimco dismissed several PILA members. PILA filed
illegal dismissal cases before the LA while Phimco filed a petition to
declare the strike as illegal before the NLRC.
6. Labor Sec assumed jurisdiction and order all strikers except those
dismissed to return to work.
7. LA on illegal dismissal: Union members were illegally dismissed.
8. NLRC: strike was illegal.
9. Cases were consolidated on appeal to NLRC saying that the strike
was legal based on the pictures showing that the picket was
peacefully moving. It also ruled that the members were illegally
dismissed.
10. CA affirmed.
ISSUE: WON the picket amounted to an illegal strike by blocking free egress.
relationship but also the general peace and progress of the community,
the law has provided limitations on the right to strike. For a strike to be valid,
it must comply with the requisites based on the labor code:
A notice of strike be filed with the DOLE 30 days before the
intended date, or 15 days in case of ULP.
A strike vote be approved by a majority of the total union
membership in the bargaining unit concerned, obtained by secret
ballot in a meeting for that purpose.
A notice to DOLE of the results of the voting at least 7 days before
the intended strike.
Despite the validity of the purpose of strike and compliance, it may still be
held illegal where the means employed are illegal, such as when they come
within the prohibitions under the LC:
No person engaged in picketing shall commit anyact of violence, coercion or intimidation or
obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes, or
obstruct public thoroughfares.
The court reviewed the evidence here because of the exception to the rule in
petitions for review of certiorari (difference of evidence of the LA from the
NLRC and CA).
There is a conceptual difference between strikes and pickets. To strike is to
withold or stop work by the concerted action of employes as a result of
an industrial or labor dispute. Such work stoppage may be accompanied
by picketing of the employees. A strike focuses on stoppage of work.
Picketing focuses on publicizing the labor dispute in order to inform the
public of what is happening in the company.
A picket simply means to march to and from the employers premises, usually
accompanied by display of placards and other signs making known the facts
of the labor dispute. it is a strike activity separate from the actual
stoppage of work.
Even though the right of employees to publicize their dispute falls within the
protection of freedom of expression and right to peacably assemble, these
are not absolute. Protected picketing does not extend to blocking ingress to
and egress from the premises.
PILA testified that non-striking employees and officers were
prevented from entering the compound.
Author: Carlo Africa
While the picket was moving, it was maintained closed to the gates
that it constituted an obstruction, especially when they moved in
circles, as shown for the pictures that they blocked the free ingress to
and egress from the premises. Upon examination, the picket was
conducted right at the company gates.
It was pure conjecture by NLRC to say that the non-strikers and
vehicles were free to get in or out with the existence of the human
blockade and the physical obstructions.
Pickets may not aggressively interfere with the right of peaceful ingress to
and egress from the employers shop or obstruct public thoroughfares, it is
not peaceful where the sidewalk or entrance of a business is obstructed by
picketers. A union officer even testified that they did not give way
despite instruction of a police major to allow entrance to company
premises.
The union officers here must be dismissed and also the members. However
since the employer failed to accord these employees the statutory due
process prior to termination (failure to comply with the 2 notice rule), such
employer must pay the dismissed workers nominal damages as indemnity for
violation of due process; even though such dismissal is for just cause.