Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

C. Alcantara and Sons vs. CA, et.

al,
G.R. No. 179220 September 29, 2010

FACTS:

C. Alcantara and Sons, Inc. (the Company) entered into a Collective Bargaining agreement with
Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Alsons-SPFL (the Union), the exclusive bargaining agent of the
Company’s rank and file employees. The CBA they entered bounds them to hold no strike and no lockout
in the course of its life. At some point the parties began negotiating the economic provisions of their CBA
but this ended in a deadlock, prompting the Union to file a notice of strike. After efforts at conciliation by
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) failed, the Union conducted a strike vote that resulted
in an overwhelming majority of its members favoring it. The Union reported the strike vote to the DOLE
and, after the observance of the mandatory cooling-off period, went on strike.

The Company filed a petition with the Regional Arbitration Board to declare the Union’s strike illegal, citing
its violation of the no strike, no lockout, provision of their CBA. Subsequently, the Company amended its
petition to implead the named Union members who allegedly committed prohibited acts during the strike.
For their part, the Union, its officers, and its affected members filed against the Company a counterclaim
for unfair labor practices, illegal dismissal, and damages. The Union also assailed as invalid the service of
summons on the individual Union members included in the amended petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Union staged an illegal strike.

HELD:

A strike may be regarded as invalid although the labor union has complied with the strict requirements
for staging one as provided in Article 263 of the Labor Code when the same is held contrary to an existing
agreement, such as a no strike clause or conclusive arbitration clause. Here, the CBA between the parties
contained a “no strike, no lockout” provision that enjoined both the Union and the Company from
resorting to the use of economic weapons available to them under the law and to instead take recourse
to voluntary arbitration in settling their disputes.

No law or public policy prohibits the Union and the Company from mutually waiving the strike and lockout
maces available to them to give way to voluntary arbitration. Indeed, no less than the 1987 Constitution
recognizes in Section 3, Article XIII, preferential use of voluntary means to settle disputes. Thus –

The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the
preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their
mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The Court finds no compelling reason to depart from the findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the
CA regarding the illegality of the strike. Social justice is not one-sided. It cannot be used as a badge for
not complying with a lawful agreement.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen