Interphil Laboraties Employees Union-FFW vs. Interphil Laboratores, G.R. NO.

142824 

Topic:Strike Activity
Brinez, Michelle O.
FACTS OF THE CASE
 Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of Interphil
Laboratories, Inc., a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and packaging pharmaceutical products. They had a Collective
Bargaining
 Agreement (CBA) effective from 01 August 1990 to 31 July 1993.
 Ocampo requested for a meeting to discuss the duration and effectivity of the CBA. Salazar acceded and a meeting was... held on 15 April 1993
where the union officers asked whether Salazar would be amenable to make the new CBA effective for two (2) years, starting 01 August 1993.
Salazar, however, declared that it would still be premature to discuss the matter and that the company could not make... a decision at the
moment.
 The very next day... the... employees stopped working and left their workplace without sealing the containers and securing the raw materials
they were working on. When Salazar inquired about the reason for their refusal to follow their normal work schedule, the employees told him to
"ask the union... officers.
 In the meeting, Enrico Gonzales, a union director, told Salazar that the employees would only return to their normal work schedule if... the
company would agree to their demands as to the effectivity and duration of the new CBA. Salazar again told the union officers that the matter
could be better discussed during the formal renegotiations of the CBA... nion was apparently unsatisfied with the answer of... the company, the
overtime boycott continued.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Petitioner union submitted with respondent company its CBA proposal, and the latter filed its counter-proposal.
respondent company filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a petition to declare illegal petitioner union's "overtime
boycott" and "work slowdown" which, according to respondent company, amounted to illegal strike... respondent company filed with the
National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) an urgent request for preventive mediation aimed to help the parties in their CBA
negotiations.[... respondent company filed with Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment a petition for assumption of jurisdiction.
petitioner union filed with the NCMB a Notice of Strike citing unfair labor practice allegedly committed by respondent company
Labor Arbiter Caday submitted his recommendation to the then Secretary of Labor Leonardo A. Quisumbing.[8] Then Secretary Quisumbing
approved and adopted the report in his Order
HEREFORE, finding the said Report of Labor Arbiter Manuel R. Caday to be supported by substantial evidence, this Office hereby RESOLVES
to APPROVE and ADOPT the same as the decision in this case, and judgment is hereby rendered:
(1) Declaring the overtime boycott' andwork slowdown' as illegal strike;

(2)Declaring the respondent union officers... who spearheaded and led the overtime boycott and work slowdown, to have lost their
employment status;
Petitioner union moved for the reconsideration of the order but its motion was denied. The union went to the Court of Appeals via a petition
for certiorari. In the now questioned decision promulgated on 29 December 1999, the appellate court dismissed the petition.
The union's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
ISSUE(S)

 Whether or not the respondents have engaged in "overtime boycott"

and "work slowdown
 ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents have engaged in "overtime
boycott" and "work slowdown
RULING
Yes.Both amounting to illegal strike, the evidence presented is equally crystal clear that the "overtime boycott" and
"work... slowdown" committed by the respondents amounted to illegal strike.
Evidently, from all the foregoing, respondents' unjustified unilateral alteration of the 24-hour work schedule thru
their concerted activities of "overtime boycott" and "work slowdown" from April 16, 1993 up to March 7, 1994, to
force the petitioner company to accede to their... unreasonable demands, can be classified as a strike on an
installment basis, as correctly called by petitioner company.
It is thus undisputed that members of the union by their own volition decided not to render overtime services...
etitioner union even admitted this in its Memorandum... filed with the Court of Appeals, as well as in the... petition
before this Court, which both stated that "(s)sometime in April 1993, members of herein petitioner, on their own
volition and in keeping with the regular working hours in the Company x x x decided not to render overtime".[21]
Such admission... confirmed the allegation of respondent company that petitioner engaged in "overtime boycott"
and "work slowdown" which, to use the words of Labor Arbiter Caday, was taken as a means to coerce respondent
company to yield to its unreasonable demands.
More importantly, the "overtime boycott" or "work slowdown" by the employees constituted a violation of their
Article 212 (o) CBA, which prohibits the union or employee, during the existence of the CBA, to stage a strike or engage in
slowdown or interruption of work.
“Strike” means any temporary stoppage of work by In Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa vs. NLRC,[23] this Court ruled:... x x x (T)he concerted activity in question
would still be illicit because contrary to the workers' explicit contractual commitment "that there shall be no strikes,
the concerted action of employees as a result of an walkouts, stoppage or slowdown of work, boycotts, secondary boycotts, refusal to handle any... merchandise,
] picketing, sit-down strikes of any kind, sympathetic or general strikes, or any other interference with any of the
industrial or labor dispute.] operations of the COMPANY during the term of xxx (their collective bargaining) agreement."
What has just been said makes unnecessary resolution of SMC's argument that the workers' concerted refusal to
adhere to the work schedule in force for the last several years, is a slowdown, an inherently illegal activity
essentially illegal even in the absence of a... no-strike clause in a collective bargaining contract, or statute or rule.
The Court is in substantial agreement with the petitioner's concept of a slowdown as a "strike on the installment
plan;" as a willful reduction in the rate of work by concerted action of workers for the... purpose of restricting the
output of the employer, in relation to a labor dispute; as an activity by which workers, without a complete stoppage
of work, retard production or their performance of duties and functions to compel management to grant their
demands. The Court also... agrees that such a slowdown is generally condemned as inherently illicit and
unjustifiable, because while the employees "continue to work and remain at their positions and accept the wages
paid to them," they at the same time "select what part of their allotted tasks they care... to perform of their own
volition or refuse openly or secretly, to the employer's damage, to do other work;" in other words, they "work on
their own terms." x x x.[24]
 ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents have engaged in "overtime
boycott" and "work slowdown
RULING
In Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa vs. NLRC,[23] this Court ruled:... x x x
(T)he concerted activity in question would still be illicit because contrary to the
workers' explicit contractual commitment "that there shall be no strikes,
walkouts, stoppage or slowdown of work, boycotts, secondary boycotts, refusal
to handle any... merchandise, picketing, sit-down strikes of any kind,
sympathetic or general strikes, or any other interference with any of the
operations of the COMPANY during the term of xxx (their collective
bargaining) agreement."
What has just been said makes unnecessary resolution of SMC's argument that
the workers' concerted refusal to adhere to the work schedule in force for the
last several years, is a slowdown, an inherently illegal activity essentially illegal
Article 212 (o) even in the absence of a... no-strike clause in a collective bargaining contract, or
statute or rule. The Court is in substantial agreement with the petitioner's
“Strike” means any temporary stoppage of work by the concept of a slowdown as a "strike on the installment plan;" as a willful
reduction in the rate of work by concerted action of workers for the... purpose of
concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial restricting the output of the employer, in relation to a labor dispute; as an
or labor dispute.] activity by which workers, without a complete stoppage of work, retard
production or their performance of duties and functions to compel management
to grant their demands. The Court also... agrees that such a slowdown is
generally condemned as inherently illicit and unjustifiable, because while the
employees "continue to work and remain at their positions and accept the wages
paid to them," they at the same time "select what part of their allotted tasks they
care... to perform of their own volition or refuse openly or secretly, to the
employer's damage, to do other work;" in other words, they "work on their own
terms." x x x.[24]
END OF CASE