Toyota Motors Phil. Corp. vs.

TMPC Labor Union

Facts:

On May 2000, Med-Arbiter Ma. Zosima Lameyra issued an order

certifying Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Workers Association as the
exclusive bargaining agent of all Toyota rank-and-file employees. Toyota filed
a motion for reconsideration assailing the said order. Lameyra denied the
motion and Toyota eventually appealed the order before the DOLE Secretary.
Meanwhile, the Union submitted its collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
proposals to Toyota but the latter refused to bargain pending its appeal
before the DOLE Secretary. The Union then filed a notice of strike with the
National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). The NCMB converted the
notice of strike to a preventive mediation considering that the DOLE
Secretary was yet to decide on Toyotas appeal. In relation to Toyotas
appeal, the parties were invited to a hearing. Union members were not
allowed to attend the hearing as they were aptly represented by the Union.
But despite this, many Union members and officers failed to render overtime
and work on the following day which caused Toyota to lose P53,849,991.00.
The union members went to the hearing and assembled before the Bureau of
Labor Relations.
Subsequently, Toyota terminated 227 employees. The terminated
employees allegedly abandoned their work. This resulted to another rally
within Toyotas premises as the strikers barricaded the entrances of Toyota
preventing non-strikers from going to work. On April 2001, the DOLE
Secretary assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and issued a return-towork order. The Union ended its strike in the same month. However, in May
and June 2001, union members still conducted rallies and pickets.
Issue:
Whether or not the strikes conducted by the Union on different
occasions are illegal.
Held:
Yes. The strike conducted before the BLR as well as the strike
conducted when the 227 employees were terminated is illegal because both
did not go through the proper procedure required by the Labor Code. It
cannot be said that the strike conducted before the BLR is beyond the ambit

of the strikes contemplated in the Labor Code. The Union argues that the
strike is actually a protest directed against the government and is covered
by their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances. The SC disagreed with this argument
because the Union failed to provide evidence that the Mediator-Arbiter was
biased against them. Further, if this were the kind of protest they were
claiming, they should have secured a rally permit. Further still, this case
involves a labor dispute. The employees may shroud their strike as mere
demonstrations covered by the constitution but in reality these are
temporary work stoppages.
The strikes conducted after the DOLE Secretary assumed jurisdiction over
the labor dispute are illegal for they violated the return-to-work order.
The Supreme Court also cited the 6 categories of illegal strikes which are:
1. When it is contrary to a specific prohibition of law, such as strike by
employees performing governmental functions; or
2. When it violates a specific requirement of law, [such as Article 263 of the
Labor Code on the requisites of a valid strike]; or
3. When it is declared for an unlawful purpose, such as inducing the
employer to commit an unfair labor practice against non-union employees; or
4. When it employs unlawful means in the pursuit of its objective, such as a
widespread terrorism of non-strikers [for example, prohibited acts under Art.
264(e) of the Labor Code]; or
5. When it is declared in violation of an existing injunction, [such as
injunction, prohibition, or order issued by the DOLE Secretary and the NLRC
under Art. 263 of the Labor Code]; or
6. When it is contrary to an existing agreement, such as a no-strike clause or
conclusive arbitration clause.