Manila Diamond Hotel Employee Union vs CA

OCTOBER 23, 2012 ~ LEAVE A COMMENT

Manila Diamond Hotel Ee Union vs CA
GR 140518
Facts:
The Union filed a petition for a certification election, which was dismissed by the DOLE. Despite the
dismissal of their petition, the Union sent a letter to the Hotel informing the latter of its desire to negotiate
for a collective bargaining agreement. The Hotel, however, refused to
negotiate with the Union, citing the earlier dismissal of the Unions petition for certification by DOLE.

Failing to settle the issue, the Union staged a strike against the Hotel. Numerous confrontations followed,
further straining the relationship between the Union and the Hotel. The Hotel claims that the strike was
illegal and dismissed some employees for their participation in the allegedly illegal concerted activity. The
Union, on the other hand, accused the Hotel of illegally dismissing the workers.

A Petition for Assumption of Jurisdiction under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code was later filed by the
Union before the Secretary of Labor. Thereafter, Secretary of Labor Trajano issued an Order directing the
striking officers and members of the Union to return to work within twenty-four (24) hours and the Hotel to
accept them back under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the strike.

After receiving the above order the members of the Union reported for work, but the Hotel refused to
accept them and instead filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Secretarys Order.

Acting on the motion for reconsideration, then Acting Secretary of Labor Espaol modified the one earlier
issued by Secretary Trajano and instead directed that the strikers be reinstated only in the payroll.

Issue: WON payroll reinstatement is proper in lieu of actual reinstatement under Article 263(g)
of the Labor Code.
Held:
Payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement is not sanctioned under the provision of the said
article.

The Court noted the difference between UST vs. NLRC and the instant case. In UST case the teachers
could not be given back their academic assignments since the order of the Secretary for them to return to
work was given in the middle of the first semester of the academic year.
The NLRC was, therefore, faced with a situation where the striking teachers were entitled to a return to
work order, but the university could not immediately reinstate them since it would be impracticable and
detrimental to the students to change teachers at that point in time.

In the present case, there is no similar compelling reason that called for payroll reinstatement as an
alternative remedy. A strained relationship between the striking employees and management is no reason
for payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement.

Under Article 263(g), all workers must immediately return to work and all employers must readmit all of
them under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.

The Court pointed out that the law uses the precise phrase of under the same terms and conditions,
revealing that it contemplates only actual reinstatement. This is in keeping with the rationale that any work
stoppage or slowdown in that particular industry can be inimical to the
national economy.

The Court reiterates that Article 263(g) was not written to protect labor from the excesses of management,
nor was it written to ease management from expenses, which it normally incurs during a work stoppage or
slowdown. This law was written as a means to be used by the State to
protect itself from an emergency or crisis. It is not for labor, nor is it for management.

Petition granted.