FACTS:
The labor dispute started when the Company and the Union reached a deadlock in their negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement. The Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB. The Acting DOLE-Sec intervened and assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and thus enjoined any strike or lockout, whether actual or intended, between the parties.
Despite the assumption Order, the Union struck. And also on despite the Notice of the Return-to-Work Order, still some of the striking workers refused to heed the order and continued with their picket. The Company then issued letters of termination for cause to the workers who did not report back to work despite the Notice of Assumption and Return-to-Work Orders issued by the Acting DOLE-Sec. However, the Acting DOLE-Sec issued another Order directing the Company to reinstate all striking workers “except the Union Officers, shop stewards, and those with pending criminal charges, x x x” while the resolution of the legality of the strike was pending. The strike was later declared illegal by the Sec.
ISSUE:
Whether or not defiance to the assumption and return-to-work orders of the Secretary of Labor after assumption of jurisdiction is a valid ground to terminate the employment of striking members.
RULING:
Yes. It is clear from Art. 263(g) that the moment the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute in an industry indispensable to national interest, such assumption shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike. It was not even necessary for the Secretary of Labor to issue another order directing them to return to work. The mere issuance of an assumption order by the Secretary of Labor automatically carries with it a return-to-work order, even if the directive to return to work is not expressly stated in the assumption order. However, petitioners refused to acknowledge this directive of the Secretary of Labor thereby necessitating the issuance of another order expressly directing the striking workers to cease and desist from their actual strike, and to immediately return to work but which directive the herein petitioners opted to ignore.
In this connection, Article 264 provides prohibited activities. One of which is that “No strike or lock out shall be declared after the assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Secretary or after certification or submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration”. The rationale of this prohibition is that once jurisdiction over the labor dispute has been properly acquired by the competent authority, that jurisdiction should not be interfered with by the application of the coercive processes of a strike. We have held in a number of cases that defiance to the assumption and return-to-work orders of the Secretary of Labor after he has assumed jurisdiction is a valid ground for loss of the employment status of any striking union officer or member
SunnyAndTheLaw 