Biflex Phils. Inc. Labor Union vs Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Corporation

G.R. No. 155679 – 540 Phil. 269 – 511 SCRA 247 – Labor Law – Labor Relations – Illegal Strike – Welga ng Bayan

On October 24, 1990, the labor sector staged a “welga ng bayan” to oppose the oil price hike. The labor unions operating in Biflex Phils. Inc. and Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Corporation (sister companies), joined the welga ng bayan. These unions are the Biflex Labor Union (BLU-NAFLU) and the Filflex Labor Union (FLU-NAFLU). They however joined the welga ng bayan without asking permission from Biflex and Filflex.

The following day, after the welga ng bayan, the union officers and several other employees camped outside the Biflex and Filflex compound and they conducted a work stoppage. In response, when the union officers and the striking employees finally wanted to go back to work, Biflex and Filflex locked the union officers out.

A labor case ensued and the labor arbiter ruled that Biflex and Filflex had the right to not accept the union officers back since said officers engaged in an illegal strike, hence, they are declared to have lost their employment status by the employer. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the ruling of the LA. The Court of Appeals reinstated the ruling of the LA.

ISSUE: Whether or not the union officers engaged in an illegal strike.

HELD: Yes. As a rule, when union officers engage in an illegal strike, the employer may declare that they have lost their employment status.

The welga ng bayan was a general strike or an extended sympathy strike. Here, there was really no labor dispute between the unions and the employers. The unions merely sympathized in a strike of a more general concern. However, they did so without asking permission from their employer. Worse, after the welga ng bayan, they staged a work stoppage which crippled the operation of the corporations.

It is true that the act of the unions in joining the welga ng bayan may be just a form of exercising their freedom of expression, still such right is not absolute. The right of the corporations to “reasonable returns on investments, and to expansion and growth” are also considered.

Further, the unions did not follow the prescribed procedure in staging a strike, to wit:

(1) filing of notice of strike;

(2) securing a strike vote, and

(3) submission of a report of the strike vote to the Department of Labor and Employment.

And even if assuming arguendo that they followed the above procedure, their strike became illegal because apparently during the strike, the strikers prevented other employees from going to and from the workplace – they blocked the egress and ingress of the work area. Such constitute an act of illegal strike and that makes the union officers liable.

Read full text.