CASE NO. 192 CASE NO.

193
STRIKES, LOCKOUTS, & CONCERTED ACTIONS STRIKES, LOCKOUTS, & CONCERTED ACTIONS
Club Filipino vs. Bautista | G.R. No. 168406, 2009 Jackbilt Industries Inc. vs. Jackbilt Employees Union | G.R. NOS.
171618-19
FACTS: On April 6, 2001, Respondents, officers of the union of the
employees of the petitioners, filed a notice of strike with the NCMB on FACTS: Due to economic crisis, Petitioners temporarily stopped its
the ground of bargaining deadlock and failure to bargain. Petitioners business compelling most of its employees to go on leave for 6 months.
submitted its offer, but the Union wanted more. Upon refusal to improve Respondent union claimed that petitioner halted production to avoid its
the offer, union staged a strike on May 26, 2001, on the ground of a CBA duty to bargain collectively. Thus, Respondents went on strike Its
bargaining deadlock. Petitioner then sought to declare the strike illegal officers and members picketed petitioner's main gates and deliberately
on the ground of failure to attach the counterproposal of the company in prevented persons and vehicles from going into and out of the
the notice of strike. compound. They then filed complaints for illegal lockout, illegal
dismissal, and refusal to bargain against petitioner. Because petitioner
ISSUE: W/N the strike was legal. did not file a petition to declare the strike illegal before terminating
respondent's officers and employees, LA was found guilty of illegal
RULING: YES. In cases of bargaining deadlocks, the notice shall, as dismissal.
far as practicable, further state the unresolved issues in the
bargaining negotiations and be accompanied by the written ISSUE: W/N the filing of a petition with the LA to declare a strike illegal
proposals of the union, the counter-proposals of the employer and is a condition sine qua non for the valid termination of employees.
the proof of a request for conference to settle differences.
compliance with the requirement was impossible because no RULING: NO. The use of unlawful means during a strike renders
counterproposal existed at the time the union filed a notice of such strike illegal. Therefore, pursuant to the principle of
strike. The law does not exact compliance with the impossible. conclusiveness of judgment, the March 9, 1998 strike was ipso
In the instant case, the union cannot be faulted for its omission. facto illegal. The filing of a petition to declare the strike illegal was
The union could not have attached the counterproposal of the company thus unnecessary.
in the notice of strike it submitted to the NCMB as there was no such Article 264(e) of the Labor Code prohibits any person engaged in
counterproposal. picketing from obstructing the free ingress to and egress from the
To recall, the union filed a notice of strike on April 6, 2001 after employer's premises.
several requests to start negotiations proved futile. It was only on April Since respondent prevented the free entry into and exit of
22, 2001, or after two weeks, when the company formally responded to vehicles from petitioner's compound, respondent's officers and
the union by submitting the first part of its counterproposal. employees clearly committed illegal acts in the course of the March 9,
Worse, it took the company another three weeks to complete it 1998 strike.
by submitting on May 11, 2001 the second part of its counterproposal. Article 264 of the Labor Code further provides that an employer
This was almost a year after the expiration of the CBA sought to be may terminate employees found to have committed illegal acts in the
renewed. course of a strike. Petitioner clearly had the legal right to terminate
respondent's officers and employees.
 Case No. 194 Case No. 195
Strikes, Lockouts, and Concerted Actions Strikes, Lockouts, and Concerted Actions
C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 631 SCRA 486, G.R. No. Phimco Industries, Inc. vs. Phimco Industries Labor Association
155109 September 29, 2010 (PILA), 628 SCRA 119, G.R. No. 170830 August 11, 2010

FACTS: The Nagkahiusang Mamumuno sa Alsons-SPFL Union (Union) FACTS: Labor Arbiter declared the strike by respondent union against
staged a strike against C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc. (the Company) despite a petitioner Company illegal i.e. committing prohibited acts during the
no strike and no lock-out provisions in their CBA. The strike was due to strike by blocking the ingress to and egress from PHIMCO’s premises
a bargaining deadlock and a notice of strike was properly filed. The and preventing the non-striking employees from reporting for work. LA
Labor Arbiter declared illegal the union strike by and held that Union ruled that it was not enough that the picket of the strikers was a moving
Officers should be deemed to have forfeited their employment with the picket, since the strikers should allow the free passage to the entrance
Company. and exit points of the company premises.

ISSUES: W/N termination of employment of the union officers for their ISSUE: Was the LA’s decision declaring that the strike illegal, proper?
illegal acts is justified.
RULING: YES. While a strike focuses on stoppage of work, picketing
RULINGS: focuses on publicizing the labor dispute and its incidents to inform the
YES. A strike may be regarded as invalid although the labor union has public of what is happening in the company struck against. A picket
complied with the strict requirements provided in Article 263 of the simply means to march to and from the employer's premises,
Labor Code when the same is held contrary to an existing agreement. usually accompanied by the display of placards and other signs
The “no strike, no lockout” provision that enjoined both the Union and making known the facts involved in a labor dispute. Picketing carried
the Company from resorting to the use of economic weapons available to on with violence, coercion or intimidation is unlawful. Protected
them under the law and to instead take recourse to voluntary arbitration picketing does not extend to blocking ingress to and egress from
in settling their disputes. No law or public policy prohibits the Union and the company premises. That the picket was moving, was peaceful
the Company from mutually waiving the strike and lockout maces and was not attended by actual violence may not free it from taints
available to them to give way to voluntary arbitration. of illegality if the picket effectively blocked entry to and exit from the
Since the Union’s strike has been declared illegal, the Union company premises.
officers can, in accordance with law be terminated from employment for
their actions. This includes the shop stewards. They cannot be shielded (Shown by photographs): While the picket was moving, it was
from the coverage of Article 264 of the Labor Code since the Union maintained so close to the company gates that it virtually constituted an
appointed them as such and placed them in positions of leadership and obstruction, especially when the strikers joined hands, or were moving
power over the men in their respective work units. As regards the rank- in circles, hand-to-shoulder. The obstructive nature of the picket was
and-file Union members, Article 264 of the Labor Code provides that it aggravated by the placement of benches, with strikers standing on top,
must be shown that such a union member, clearly identified, performed directly in front of the open wing of the company gates, clearly
illegal acts during the strike. Here, the NLRC found that the Union obstructing the entry and exit points of the company compound. Company
members concerned committed such acts, for which they had in fact vehicles likewise could not enter and get out of the factory. The blockade
been criminally charged before various courts and the prosecutors’ went to the point of causing the build-up of traffic in the immediate
office in Davao City as seen in the photos taken during the strike.
vicinity of the strike area—this, by itself, renders the picket a prohibited the Secretary of Labor of an assumption order and/or certification is
activity. a prohibited activity and thus illegal. Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code,
CASE NO. 196 as amended, also considers it a prohibited activity to declare a strike
Strikes, Lockouts, and Concerted Actions “during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the same
Solidbank Corporation vs. Gamier, 634 SCRA 554, November 15, strike.
2010
CASE NO. 197
FACTS: A CBA deadlock occurred. DOLE Secretary then assumed Strikes, Lockouts, and Concerted Actions
jurisdiction and resolved all the issues submitted to him for his Escario et. al. vs. NLRC, 631 SCRA 261, September 27, 2010
resolution. Dissatisfied with the ruling, an overwhelming majority of
Solidbank’s employees joined the mass leave and protest action at the FACTS: Petitioners were members of the Union at Pinakamasarap
DOLE Secretary’s office while the bank’s provincial branches in Cebu, Corporation (PINA). All the officers and some 200 members of the Union
Iloilo, Bacolod, and Naga followed suit and boycotted regular work. walked out of PINA’s premises and proceeded to the barangay office to
Union members also picketed the bank’s head office and Paseo de Roxas show support for Cañ ete, an officer of the Union charged with oral
Branch. As a result, Solidbank’s business operations were paralyzed. defamation by PINA. As a result of the walkout, PINA preventively
suspended all officers of the Union and terminated them after a month.
ISSUE: Whether acts of respondents were a legitimate exercise of their
right to express dissatisfaction with the Secretary’s resolution. PINA filed a complaint for ULP and damages where it was declared by
the LA that the act of the union was an illegal walkout and that all the
RULING: NO, there had been a STRIKE. A strike is any temporary Union’s officers, except Cañ ete, had thereby lost their employment. The
stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an Union filed a notice of strike, claiming that PINA was guilty of union
industrial or labor dispute. The term “strike” shall comprise not only busting through the constructive dismissal of its officers and a strike was
concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, later on conducted. Petitioners dismissed for joining the strike but later
sitdowns, attempts to damage, destroy or sabotage plant equipment on reinstated due to their not being found to have abandoned their jobs
and facilities and similar activities. Thus, the fact that the conventional are now claiming for full backwages for the period of the strike.
term “strike” was not used by the striking employees (they used the
term “mass action”) to describe their common course of action is ISSUE: Whether petitioners are entitled to full backwages for the period
inconsequential, since the substance of the situation, and not its of the strike.
appearance, will be deemed to be controlling.
RULING: NO. The petitioners’ participation in the illegal strike was
The concerted action was not limited to the protest rally infront of the precisely what prompted PINA to file a complaint to declare them, as
DOLE Office. There was also a picket at the Head Office and Paseo de striking employees, to have lost their employment status. However, the
Roxas Branch. About 712 employees, including those in the provincial NLRC ultimately ordered their reinstatement after finding that they had
branches, boycotted and were absent for 3 continuous days that not abandoned their work by joining the illegal strike. They were thus
virtually paralyzed operations. Once the Secretary of Labor assumes entitled only to reinstatement, regardless of whether or not the
jurisdiction over a labor dispute, such jurisdiction should not be strike was the consequence of the employer’s ULP, considering that a
interfered with by the application of the coercive processes of a strike was NOT a renunciation of the employment relation.
strike or lockout. A strike that is undertaken despite the issuance by
GR: backwages are granted to indemnify a dismissed employee for his law is to give the Labor Secretary full authority to resolve all matters
loss of earnings during the whole period that he is out of his job. An within the dispute that gave rise to or which arose out of the strike or
illegally dismissed employee is not deemed to have left his employment lockout; it includes and extends to all questions and controversies
and is entitled to all the rights and privileges that accrue to him from the arising from or related to the dispute, including cases over which the
employment. labor arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction.
XPN: Backwages are NOT granted to employees participating in an
(2) YES. The union and its officers, as well as the workers, defied the
illegal strike in accord with the reality that they do not render work
Labor Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction, especially the
for the employer during the period of the illegal strike —fair day’s
accompanying return-to-work order within twenty-four (24) hours;
wage for a fair day’s labor. their defiance made the strike illegal under the law and applicable
jurisprudence. Consequently, it constitutes a valid ground for dismissal.
Case No. 198
Module 6: Strikes, Lockouts, Concerted Actions Case No. 199
Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Triumph vs. Secretary, Module 6: Strikes, Lockouts, Concerted Actions
Triumph International (Phils.), Inc.| G.R. No. 167401: July 5, 2010 Fadriquelan, et al. vs. Monterey Foods| G.R. No. 178409, June 08,
2011
Facts: The CBA expired and proposals were submitted to the company.
However, the negotiations (on wage increase) reached a deadlock, Facts: The negotiation for a new CBA between the union and the
leading to a Notice of Strike filed by the union. NCMB failed to resolve company reached a deadlock. Notice of strike was filed with the NCMB.
the deadlock. The company then filed a Notice of Lock-out for unfair
Due to dire effects on the meat industry, the SOLE assumed jurisdiction
labor practice due to the union's alleged work slowdown. The SOLE
and enjoined the union from holding any strike. But the union filed a
assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and directed all striking
workers to return to work. Several employees attempted to report for second notice of strike before the NCMB. Eventually, the union officers
work, but the striking employees prevented them from entering the were terminated from work for defying the SOLE's assumption order.
company premises. The SOLE included the second notice of strike in his earlier assumption
Nonetheless, the striking employees returned to work but 21 union order. But, on the same day, the union filed a third notice of strike (later
officers were eventually terminated for leading, instigating, and subsumed by the SOLE under the first and second notices). Nonetheless,
participating in a deliberate work slowdown during the CBA both the DOLE and the CA upheld the validity of the termination.
negotiations. Hence, the union leaders sought for their reinstatement. (1) Whether or not slowdown strike after the SOLE assumed
But the SOLE ruled that the legality of the union officers' dismissal jurisdiction is illegal.
properly falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the labor YES. The law is explicit: no strike shall be declared after the Secretary of
arbiter. Labor has assumed jurisdiction over a labor dispute. A strike conducted
after such assumption is illegal and any union officer who knowingly
Issue: (1) Whether or not the SOLE has jurisdiction to resolve the participates in the same may be declared as having lost his employment.
dismissal issue that involved illegal strikes. (2) Whether or not the Here, what is involved is a slowdown strike where employees
termination was proper because the strike was illegal. involved do not walk out of their but they need only to stop work or
reduce the rate of their work while generally remaining in their assigned
Ruling: (1) YES. The grant of assumptions powers to the Labor post. The Court finds that the union officers and members in this case
Secretary is not limited to the grounds cited in the notice of strike or held a slowdown strike at the company's farms despite the fact that the
lockout that may have preceded the strike or lockout; nor is it limited to DOLE Secretary had on May 12, 2003 already assumed jurisdiction over
the incidents of the strike or lockout that in the meanwhile may have their labor dispute. The evidence sufficiently shows that union officers
taken place. As the term "assume jurisdiction" connotes, the intent of the
and members simultaneously stopped work at the company's Batangas Consequently, the mandatory notice of strike and the conduct of the
and Cavite farms at 7:00 a.m. on May 26, 2003. strike-vote report were ineffective for having been filed and conducted
before KMLMS acquired legal personality as an LLO. The Labor Code
(2) Whether or not illegal strike between ordinary workers and provides that in case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or
union officers is the same. recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the employer
NO. A distinction exists, however, between the ordinary workers' may file a notice of lockout with the Ministry at least 30 days before the
liability for illegal strike and that of the union officers who participated intended date thereof.
in it. The ordinary worker cannot be terminated for merely participating
in the strike. There must be proof that he committed illegal acts during CASE 201
its conduct. On the other hand, a union officer can be terminated upon EFFECT WHEN BOTH PARTIES ACTED IN PARI DELICTO
mere proof that he knowingly participated in the illegal strike. Still, the Automotive Engine Rebuilders vs. Progresibong Unyon
participating union officers have to be properly identified. July 13, 2011

CASE NO. 200 FACTS: Both parties here filed charges against each other. Petitioner
STRIKES, LOCKOUTS, AND CONCERTED ACTIONS claims that Respondent staged an illegal strike, whereas Respondent
Magdala Multipurpose & Livelihood vs. KMLMS | G.R. Nos. 191138- claims that Petitioner committed an illegal lockout.
39, October 19, 2011
FACTS: KMLMS filed a notice of strike on March 5, 2002 and conducted Petitioner AER filed a complaint against Respondent Unyon and its 18
its strike-vote on April 8, 2002. However, KMLMS only acquired legal members for illegal concerted activities. It likewise suspended 7 union
personality when its registration as an independent labor organization members who tested positive for illegal drugs. On the other hand,
was granted on April 9, 2002. On April 19, 2002, it became officially Respondent Unyon filed a countercharge accusing AER of ULP, illegal
affiliated as a local chapter of the Pambansang Kaisahan ng suspension and illegal dismissal.
Manggagawang Pilipino when its application was granted by the Bureau
of Labor Relations. LA ruled in favor of Unyon directing the reinstatement of concerned
Thereafter, on May 6, 2002, KMLMS––now a legitimate labor employees, except those who tested positive, but without backwages.
organization (LLO)––staged a strike where several prohibited and illegal NLRC set aside the order of reinstatement as it ruled out illegal
acts were committed by its participating members. Petitioners filed a dismissal.
petition to declare the May 6 strike illegal on the ground of lack of valid
notice of strike, ineffective conduct of a strike-vote and commission of ISSUE: Whether the dismissal of the striking employees is warranted.
prohibited and illegal acts. LA held that the strike is illegal and declared
27 workers to have lost their employment. NLRC affirmed with RULING: NO. Neither party came to court with clean hands.  Both
modification by adding 7 union members to have forfeited their parties are in pari delicto and such situation warrants the
employment status. CA affirmed. restoration of the status quo ante and bringing the parties back to
ISSUE: Whether or not the May 6 strike was illegal. the respective positions before the illegal strike and illegal lockout.
RULING: YES. The May 6, 2002 strike was illegal, first, because when Nonetheless, if reinstatement is no longer feasible, the concerned
KMLMS filed the notice of strike on March 5 or 14, 2002, it had not yet employees should be given separation pay up to the date set for the
acquired legal personality and, thus, could not legally represent the return of the complaining employees in lieu of reinstatement. Thus, the
eventual union and its members. And second, when KMLMS conducted complaining employees should be reinstated without backwages.
the strike-vote on April 8, 2002, there was still no union to speak of,
since KMLMS only acquired legal personality as an independent LLO Management Union
only on April 9, 2002 or the day after it conducted the strike-vote. A day after the union filed a The union and the affected
 petition for certification election workers were also at fault for signatures in the Membership Resolution, they cannot be granted the
before the DOLE, it hit back by resorting to a concerted work relief that Unyon wanted for them in its Motion for Partial
requiring all its employees to slowdown and walking out of Reconsideration.
undergo a compulsory drug test. their jobs of protest for their
illegal suspension. The picketing
It also refused to admit back employees prevented the entry
those employees who were not and exit of non-participating
included in its complaint against employees.
the union.

CASE NO. 201-A

EFFECT WHEN BOTH PARTIES ACTED IN PARI DELICTO
Automotive Engine Rebuilders vs. Progresibong Unyon
January 16, 2013

FACTS: Unyon filed the subject Motion for Partial Reconsideration

questioning the 2011 Decision insofar as it failed to award backwages to
14 of its members. Unyon argues that backwages should have been
awarded to the 14 employees who were excluded from the complaint
filed by AER and that the latter should have reinstated them immediately
because they did not have any case at all.

ISSUE: Whether all the 14 members should be reinstated immediately

with backwages.

RULING: NO. SC holds that only 9 of the 14 excluded employees deserve

to be reinstated immediately with backwages. Records disclose that 32
employees filed a complaint for illegal suspension and unfair labor
practice against AER. Out of these 32 workers, only 18 of them were
charged by AER with illegal strike leaving 14 of them excluded from its
complaint.

Technically, as no charges for illegal strike were filed against these 14

employees, they cannot be among those found guilty of illegal strike.
They cannot be considered in pari delicto. They should be reinstated and
given their backwages.

Out of these 14 employees, however, five (5) failed to write their names
and affix their signatures in the Membership Resolution attached to the
petition filed before the CA, authorizing Union President Arnold Villota
to represent them. Because of their failure to affix their names and
 CASE NO. 202 “Mass” is defined as “participated in, attended by, or affecting a large
“MASS” LEAVE AS A FORM OF STRIKE number of individuals; having a large-scale character.”
Naranjo vs. Biomedica Health Care, Inc. “Leave” is defined as “an authorized absence or vacation from duty or
G.R. No. 193789. September 19, 2012 employment usually with pay.
Thus, the term Mass Leave may refer to a simultaneous availment of
FACTS: Here, the 5 petitioners were absent on November 7, 2006. (plus authorized leave benefits by a large number of employees in a company.
2 other employees. 7 total absent) due to various personal reasons (loose Simply put, a mass leave involves a large number of people or workers.
bowel movement, ophthalmology checkup, migraine, not feeling well,
and for Naranjo – he had to attend a meeting at his child’s school).
Notably, these are the same employees who filed a complaint to the
DOLE against the President for lack of salary increases, failure to remit
SSS and PAGIBIG contributions, and violation of minimum wage law.
They were subsequently dismissed for conducting strike through mass
leaves.

LA ruled that petitioners engaged in a mass leave akin to a strike. NLRC

reversed and ruled that petitioners have been illegally dismissed.

ISSUE: Whether there was mass leave in this case.

RULING: NO. Petitioners were illegally dismissed. It is undeniable that

going on leave or absenting one’s self from work for personal reasons
when they have leave benefits available is an employee’s right.

There is no evidence on record that 5 employees constitute a substantial

number of employees of Biomedica. In no way that the absence of 5
employees be considered “concerted.”

The fact that petitioners reported for work in the afternoon after they
received text messages asking them to do so shows that there was no
intent to go on strike.

Moreover, Biomedica failed to prove that the alleged mass leave

paralyzed the company operation on that day. No proof that it
constituted temporary stoppage of work.

The term “Mass Leave” has been left undefined by the Labor Code.
 CASE NO. 203 declared to have been validly terminated by petitioner. [this constitutes
LIABILITY OF UNION MEMBERS VS UNION OFFICERS “knowingly participating” in the illegal strike]
VCMC vs. Yballe
G.R. NO. 196156. JANUARY 15, 2014
CASE NO. 204
FACTS: The NFL is the exclusive bargaining representative of the rank ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY SOLE
and file employees of Visayas Community Medical Center (VCMC). Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association v. Pilipinas Shell
NAMA-MCCH-NFL (NAMA for brevity) is a local affiliate whose union Petroleum Corporation G.R. No. 170007, April 7, 2014
leaders proceeded to strike despite the fact that it is not a legitimate
FACTS: During CBA negotiations, the Union proposed that there be a
labor organization.
20% annual across-the-board basic salary increase for the next 3 years.
The company counteroffered a lump sum payment of 80,000 yearly for
The respondents are staff nurses and midwives of VCMC who actively the 3-year period of the new CBA.
joined and were believed to have taken part in committing illegal acts
during the strike. Consequently, VCMC terminated the union leaders of For failure to come to an agreement, the company then proposed the
NAMA as well as herein respondents. The CA, however, found that declaration of a deadlock and recommended that the help of 3 rd party be
respondents cannot be considered to have committed illegal acts since sought. Instead of replying, they filed a Notice to Strike on the ground of
their participation was limited to the wearing of black arm bands. bad faith negotiation.

ISSUE: Whether respondents were validly dismissed due to their DOLE Secretary then issued a resolution assuming jurisdiction justifying
participation in the illegal strike. that oil prices will be affected if the matter was not resolve. The Union
now questions the assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary over the
RULING: NO. A worker merely participating in an illegal strike may not case since there was no formal declaration of CBA deadlock yet.
be terminated from employment. It is only when he commits illegal acts
ISSUE: Whether the DOLE Secretary may assume jurisdiction.
during a strike that he may be declared to have lost employment status.
In contrast, a union officer may be terminated from employment for RULING: YES. In national interest cases involving unresolved issues in
knowingly participating in an illegal strike or participates in the the CBA negotiations, the DOLE Secretary is not precluded from
commission of illegal acts during a strike. The law grants the employer assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute or certifying it to the NLRC
the option of declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal for compulsory arbitration even in the absence of formal declaration of
strike as having lost his employment. It possesses the right and deadlock by either or both of the parties.
prerogative to terminate the union officers from service.
There was already an actual existing deadlock between the parties.
Since there was no showing that the complainants committed any illegal What was lacking was the formal recognition of the existence of such a
act during the strike, they may not be deemed to have lost their deadlock because the union refused a declaration of deadlock. The
employment status by their mere participation in the illegal strike absence of the parties’ mutual declaration of deadlock does not mean
that there was no deadlock.
On the other hand, the union leaders who conducted the illegal strike
The significance of the power of the SOLE is to assume jurisdiction over
despite knowledge that NAMA is not a duly registered labor union were
a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an
industry indispensable to the national interest.
 receive the AJO and waited for their union president to receive the same
at 5:25 p.m.

CASE NO. 205 CASE NO. 206

Strikes, Lockouts & Concerted Actions Strikes, Lockouts & Concerted Actions
University of San Agustin Employees Association v. CA The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Employees Union
G.R. No. 169632, March 28, 2006 v. NLRC, G.R. No. 156635
FACTS: University of San Agustin entered into a CBA with Petitioner FACTS: Petitioner Union conducted a strike vote against HSBC’s Job
Union. One of its provisions contained a "no strike, no lockout" clause. Evaluation Program (JEP) which consisted a job designation per grade
During the last 2 years of the CBA, they entered into a renegotiation but level with a salary scale, insisting that the program constituted ULP.
failed to agree on one of the economic provisions, specifically, the tuition Together with the Union’s Officer, the members walked out and gathered
incremental proceeds (TIP), even after submitting to voluntary outside the premises of HSBC’s offices. They blocked the entry and exit
arbitration. This prompted the Union to declare a deadlock and filed a points of the bank premises, preventing the bank officers from entering
notice to strike with the NCMB. and/or leaving the premises.
The strike was opposed by the University pursuant to its “no strike, no
HSBC issued return-to-work notices to the striking employees which
lockout” clause in the CBA. SOLE assumed jurisdiction and issued and
order enjoining the Union from striking and the University from locking only 25 employees complied and returned to work. HSBC then
down. Despite said order, the Union still proceeded with the strike for 9 terminated the herein petitioners. LA declared that strike illegal for the
hours (from 8:45am to 5:25pm). As a result of the strike, union officers failure of the Union to file that notice of strike; failure to observe the
were removed by the University. cooling-off period; and failure to submit the results of the strike vote. On
appeal, the NLRC & CA ruled that the dismissal of some Union members
ISSUE: W/N the Union can be penalized for violating the not-to-strike unlawful for failure of HSBC to accord procedural due process. HSBC was
order by the SOLE, even if it was for only 9 hours. ordered to pay separation pay to 18 union members.

RULING: YES. The length of time within which the assumption or ISSUE: W/N the strike was illegal for failure to comply with the
certification order or return-to-work was defied by the strikers is not procedural requirements as required by the Labor Code.
significant in determining their liability therefor. (book)
RULING: YES. The procedural requirements for a valid strike are
When the SOLE assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an industry
mandatory, such that non-compliance therewith by the union will
indispensable to national interest or certifies the same to the NLRC for
compulsory arbitration, such assumption or certification shall have the render the strike illegal. Petitioners neither filed the notice of strike with
effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or the DOLE, nor observed the cooling-off period, nor submitted the result
lockout. Moreover, if one had already taken place, all striking workers of the strike vote. Although the strike vote was conducted, the same was
shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately done by open, not secret, balloting, in blatant violation of Article
resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and 278. Moreover, the employment of prohibited means in carrying out
conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. concerted actions injurious to the right to property of others could only
render their strike illegal.
In this case, the SOLE’s Assumption of Jurisdiction Order was served at However, the liability for the illegal strike is individual, not
8:45 a.m. of September 19, 2003. The strikers then should have returned collective. To warrant the termination of an officer of the labor
to work immediately. However, they persisted with their refusal to organization, the employer must show that the officer knowingly
participated in the illegal strike. Unlike the Union’s officers, an ordinary days required by law (15 days strike notice, plus seven days strike vote
striking employee cannot be terminated based solely on his participation period). It, however, maintained that it was left with no choice but to go
in the illegal strike. While Article 279 authorizes the termination of the on strike a day earlier because the respondent had barred its officers
union officers and employees, it does not remove from the employees and members from entering the school premises. The court found no
their right to due process. (SC affirmed decision of CA) reason for the officers to throw away all their preparations for a lawful
CASE NO. 207 strike on the very last day, had they not been pushed to act by the
Strikes, Lockouts & Concerted Actions respondent’s closing of the gates on Aug. 9, 2010.
PMI Employees Union v. PMI Colleges, G.R. No. 211526 CASE NO. 208
FACTS: The Union filed a notice of strike against PMI-Bohol for alleged Strikes, Lockouts & Concerted Actions
gross violation of certain provisions of their CBA. While awaiting for the Guagua National Colleges (GNC) v. Guagua National Colleges Faculty
expiration of the 15 day cooling-off period and completion of the 7 day Labor Union and Guagua Colleges Non-Teaching and Maintenance
strike vote period or 22 days as required by law, the teachers Labor Union, G.R. No. 204693
“religiously reported for duty” but on the last day of the cooling off and FACTS: Respondents were the bargaining agents of GNC. Their CBA has
strike vote periods, they were allegedly “not allowed entry to the school a "no-strike, no lock-out” clause. Respondents submitted an
premises” by the security guards of PMI Bohol. economic/monetary-related proposal to GNC, but no bargaining took
place. Respondents first filed a preventive mediation where no one
Union members, in their sworn testimonies that despite their protest appeared on behalf of GNC. This prompted Respondents to file a notice
and insistence to enter the PMI premises in compliance with their of strike.
teaching load, the PMI security guards “pushed them out of the school
grounds” under orders from school authorities. The union admitted that ISSUE: W/N Respondents may file a notice of strike despite a “no-strike,
they staged the strike on August 9, 2010, the 21st day after the filing of no lock-out” clause.
the strike notice on July 19, 2010 and submission of the strike vote on
August 2, 2010, or a day earlier than the 22 days cooling off period. RULING: YES. It is settled that a "no strike, no lock-out" provision in
the CBA may only be invoked by an employer when the strike is
LA dismissed the petition for lack of merit, declaring the strike to be economic in nature or one which is conducted to force wage or
valid. LA considered the staging of the strike one day earlier not other agreements from the employer that are not mandated to be
sufficient for a declaration of illegality as the Union granted by law. It is not applicable when the strike is grounded on
"officers/members were illegally locked out. However, the NLRC unfair labor practice.
ruled the strike illegal and gave weight to a video footage 15 mo. after the
strike showing that the school was not restricted by the security guards.
In this case, the facts of the case reveal that what primarily impelled
Respondents to file said notice was their perception of bad faith
ISSUE: W/N the strike was illegal.
bargaining and violation of the duty to bargain collectively by GNC.
Respondents' intention was to protest what they perceived to be acts of
RULING: NO. The declaration of the strike a day before the completion
unfair labor practice and not to circumvent the "no strike, no lock-out"
of the cooling off and strike vote periods was but a reaction to the
clause and the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration provision
respondent’s locking out the officers and members of the union. The
of the CBA.
union does not deny that it staged the strike on Aug. 9, 2010, or on the
21st day after the filing of the strike notice on July 19, 2010, and the
submission of the strike vote on Aug. 2, 2010, a day earlier than the 22