T & H SHOPFITTERS CORPORATION/GIN QUEEN CORPORATION, et al. v.

T & H
SHOPFITTERS CORPORATION/QUEEN WORKERS UNION, et al.

G.R. No. 191714, 26 February 2014, THIRD DIVISION (Mendoza, J.)

The interference of the management and campaigning against the formation of the union
violates the constitutional right of employees which constitutes Unfair Labor Practice.

Officers and members of THS-GQ union filed a complaint for Unfair labor Practice by
way of union busting and illegal lockout against T&H Shopfitters Corporation and Gin Queen
Corporation before the Labor Arbiter.

To improve the working conditions of employees, respondents and the employees of the
sole corporation had a formal meeting to discuss the formation of a union. A day after the
meeting, 17 employees were barred from entering the factory premises purportedly because of
its expansion. Afterwards, the 17 employees were repeatedly ordered to go on forced leave due
to the unavailability of work.

After issuing a certificate of registration by DOLE, members of the union were not given
regular work assignments while subcontractors were continuously hired to perform their
functions. The petitioner and the union had an agreement to give priority to regular employees
however the former never complied with their commitment.

On 2004, Director Huang for Gin Queen informed the employees of its relocation. Later
on, members of the union were forced to work as grass cutters in the grassland where the
company is to relocate. Due to these circumstances, the employees did not report to work which
prompted their suspension. Moreover, the members of the union were excluded from the field
trip sponsored by the petitioners. During the trip ANGEL MADRIAGA campaigned against the
union in the forthcoming certification election. Because of this, the votes for no union
prevailed.

A week after the certification election, the union members were retrenched. Gin Queen
claims that retrenchment was necessary since there was a decrease in orders from its
customers. Moreover, they claim that the relocation was a result of the expiration of a lease
agreement with the lessor and considering that the new site was bare, Gin Queen offered work
to employees on rotational system.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Gin Queen Corporation is liable for Unfair Labor Practices.

HELD:

The campaign against the formation of the union violates the right of the employees to
self-organize thus constitutes Unfair labor Practices.
 Article 256 of the Labor Code explains that Unfair Labor Practices violates the
constitutional rights of employees to self organize to bargain in an equal footing with the
employer. ULP must be strictly be related to the employees right to self-organize.

When the petitioner sponsored a field trip to non-union members reeks of interference
on the part of the petitioner. The statement made by Angel Madriaga interfered with the
employees right to self-organize.

G.R. No. 193789 : September 19, 2012

ALEX Q. NARANJO, DONNALYN DE GUZMAN, RONALD V. CRUZ, ROSEMARIE P.

PIMENTEL, and ROWENA B. BARDAJE,Petitioners, v. BIOMEDICA HEALTH CARE, INC.
and CARINA "KAREN" J. MOTOL, Respondents.

VELASCO, JR., J.:

FACTS:

Petitioners Alex Naranjo (Naranjo), Ronald Allan Cruz, Rowena Bardaje, Donnalyn De Guzman
and Rosemarie Pimentel were all employees of Biomedica Health Care, Inc. (Biomedica).

On November 7, 2006, Naranjo, et al. were all absent for various personal reasons. The next
day, Naranjo, et al. came in for work but were not allowed to enter the premises. Carina Motol
(Motol), Biomedicas president, informed them using foul language, to just find other
employment.

Subsequently, Biomedica issued notices to Naranjo, et al. accusing them of having conducted
an illegal strike and were accordingly directed to explain within twenty-four (24) hours to explain
why they should not be held guilty of and dismissed for violating the company policy against
illegal strikes under Article XI, Category Four, Sections 6, 8, 12, 18 and 25 of the Company
Policy.Biomedica, however, failed to furnish them with the copy of the said company policy.

Naranjo, et al. failed to submit their written explanation. Thus, Biomedica served Notices of
Termination stating that Naranjo, et al. engaged in illegal strike. Consequently, Naranjo et al.
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The LA dismissed the complaint. The NLRC reversed the
LA. On appeal to the CA, the CA reinstated the decision of the LA.

ISSUE: Whether or not Naranjo, et al. were illegally dismissed?

HELD: The petition is meritorious.

LABOR LAW: illegal dismissal; mass leave; strike

Petitioners were not afforded procedural due process.Thus, the Court elaborated in King of
Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac that a mere general description of the charges against an
employee by the employer is insufficient to comply with the above provisions of the law. Clearly,
petitioners were charged with conducting an illegal strike, not a mass leave, without specifying
the exact acts that the company considers as constituting an illegal strike or violative of
company policies.

Further, while Biomedica cites the provisions of the company policy which petitioners
purportedly violated, it failed to quote said provisions in the notice so petitioners can be
adequately informed of the nature of the charges against them and intelligently file their
explanation and defenses to said accusations.

Moreover, the period of 24 hours allotted to petitioners to answer the notice was severely
insufficient and in violation of the implementing rules of the Labor Code. Under the
implementing rule of Art. 277, an employee should be given "reasonable opportunity" to file a
response to the notice. King of Kings Transport, Inc. elucidates in this wise: " Reasonable
opportunity under the Omnibus Rules means every kind of assistance that management must
accord to the employees to enable them to prepare adequately for their defense. This should be
construed as a period of at least five (5) calendar days from receipt of the notice to give the
employees an opportunity to study the accusation against them, consult a union official or
lawyer, gather data and evidence, and decide on the defenses they will raise against the
complaint."

In addition, Biomedica did not set the charges against petitioners for hearing or conference in
accordance with Sec. 2, Book V, Rule XIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the
Labor Code and in line with ruling in King of Kings Transport, Inc., where the Court explained:
"After serving the first notice, the employers should schedule and conduct a hearing or
conference wherein the employees will be given the opportunity to: (1) explain and clarify their
defenses to the charge against them; (2) present evidence in support of their defenses; and (3)
rebut the evidence presented against them by the management."

Petitioners were denied substantive due process. Clearly, to justify the dismissal of an employee
on the ground of serious misconduct, the employer must first establish that the employee is
guilty of improper conduct, that the employee violated an existing and valid company rule or
regulation, or that the employee is guilty of a wrongdoing. In the instant case, Biomedica failed
to even establish that petitioners indeed violated company rules, failing to even present a copy
of the rules and to prove that petitioners were made aware of such regulations.

Petitioners did not stage a mass leave. The term "Mass Leave" has been left undefined by the
Labor Code. Plainly, the legislature intended that the terms ordinary sense be used. "Mass" is
defined as "participated in, attended by, or affecting a large number of individuals; having a
large-scale character." While the term "Leave" is defined as "an authorized absence or vacation
from duty or employment usually with pay." Thus, the phrase "mass leave" may refer to a
simultaneous availment of authorized leave benefits by a large number of employees in a
company. It is undeniable that going on leave or absenting ones self from work for personal
reasons when they have leave benefits available is an employees right. Here, the five (5)
petitioners were absent on November 7, 2006. The records are bereft of any evidence to
establish how many workers are employed in Biomedica. There is no evidence on record that 5
employees constitute a substantial number of employees of Biomedica.

Petitioners did not go on strike. Art. 212(o) of the Labor Code defines a strike as "any temporary
stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of any industrial or labor
dispute." "Concerted" is defined as "mutually contrived or planned" or "performed in unison." In
the case at bar, the 5 petitioners went on leave for various reasons.Petitioners were in different
places on November 7, 2006 to attend to their personal needs or affairs. They did not go to the
company premises to petition Biomedica for their grievance. This shows that there was NO
intent to go on strike.

Dismissal is not the proper penalty. But setting aside from the nonce the facts established
above, the most pivotal argument against the dismissal of petitioners is that the penalty of
dismissal from employment cannot be imposed even if we assume that petitioners went on an
illegal strike. It has not been shown that petitioners are officers of the Union. On this issue, the
NLRC correctly cited Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. v. NLRC, wherein We ruled that:
"An ordinary striking worker cannot be terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike.
There must be proof that he committed illegal acts during a strike."

The CA is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The NLRC is REINSTATED with MODIFICATION.