NFL vs NLRC (1997) On February 3, 1993, the corporation filed a case to
J. Romero declare the strike held on January 25 and 26 as illegal.
I. FACTS: On February 8, 1993, the union filed a case for unfair
labor practice and damages
Respondent Corporation is engaged in the business of
fish and tuna export; its co-respondents are its On February 10, 1993, another conciliation was held in
corporate officers. The petitioner union is a legitimate connection with the February 5, 1993 notice of strike.
labor federation; 141 of its members were dismissed
employees of R Corporation. The union contends that 10 On February 11, 1993, the workers barricaded the
union officials who attended a certification election company gates, tying the same with ropes and chains
conference were: and preventing non-striking workers from entering or
(a) Barred from entering the company premises leaving the premises.
(b) Prohibited to work, allegedly due to their union
activities From February 12 to March 2, 1993, the company was
constrained to ferry its workers to and from the
The NLRC ruled that the company’s actuations did not company premises through its wharf with the use of
consist in a lockout but were related to disciplinary motorboats
matter, which is not connected with a labor dispute
On March 3, 1993, the striking workers cut the company
The 10 were subjected to some disciplinary actions due fence leading to the wharf, gained control of the same,
to breach of company discipline, such that, they were and chained close the last point of entrance and exit to
using their union activities to go on undertime or to and from the premises.
justify their constant and frequent absences and these
were seen as violations of company policies. The acts of coercion, intimidation and harassment were
committed by the striking workers, including the uttering
On January 25, 1993, the workers attempted to re-enter of threats of bodily harm against non-striking workers
the company’s premises but were prevented from doing and company officials.
so; thus, over 200 workers staged a picket outside
On March 11, 1993, the SOLE assumed jurisdiction over
The gates were barricaded; thus, blocking the ingress the dispute pursuant to a petition of the NFL filed on
and egress of company vehicles, trapping 50 workers January 29, 1993 Notice of Strike
inside and paralyzing company operations
The SOLE then issued a Return to Work Order ordering
On January 26, 1993, 700 non-striking workers were all striking workers should return by March 15, 1993.
prevented from working. The PNP’s intercession was ignored.
On January 27, 1993, the workers returned to work due On March 29, 1993, the workers finally lifted their picket
to a memorandum forged between the union and lines.
respondent corporation. The workers failed to submit
their explanations; thus, the management placed them On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision of LA.
under preventive suspension
II. ISSUE:
On January 29, 1993, petitioner union filed a notice of W/N the strike was legal – No
strike with the NCMB and they filed again another notice
of strike since it was contested by the corporation III. RULING:
In the case at bar, no notice of strike, as required by
The notice of strike alleged discrimination, coercion,
Article 263(g) was filed by the union prior to the strike
union busting, black listing of union members,
on January 25 and 26. No prior notice of the taking of a
intimidation, dismissal of union officers and members
strike vote was furnished the NCMB, nor was the seven-
day strike ban after the strike vote observed.
Instead, the workers immediately barricaded company
premises in the afternoon of January 25, 1996,
completely disregarding the procedural steps prescribed
by Art. 263 (c) and (f)
As for the strike commenced on February 11, only six ban after the strike-vote report prescribed in Art. 264(f)
days had elapsed from the filing of the Notice to Strike were meant to be, and should be deemed, mandatory .
on February 5, 1993
In addition, various illegal acts were committed by the
strikers during said strike. The strikers destroyed
company property and intimidated and harassed non-
striking workers in violation of Art. 264 (e) of the Labor
Code. Likewise, barricading, chaining and padlocking of
dates to prevent free ingress and egress into company
premises are also violations of the self-same article.
The union is wrong in asserting that the strike can be
declared legal for it was done in good faith. Even if the
union acted in good faith in the belief that the company
was committing an unfair labor practice, if no notice of
strike and a strike vote were conducted, the said strike
is illegal.
The dismissal is principally based on their refusal to
return to work after the Secretary of Labor had assumed
jurisdiction over the case on March 11, 1993.
Despite the efforts of PNP personnel to persuade the
workers to comply with the Return-to-Work Order, the
strike continued until March 29, 1993 when the workers
dismantled their pickets.
The union’s refusal to return to work has no factual
basis since the form imposing certain conditions before
admitting them back to work was prior to the return to
work order issued by the SOLE on March 11, 1993.
A strike (or lockout), to enjoy the protection of law,
must observe certain procedural requisites mentioned in
Art. 263 and the Implementing Rules, namely:
A notice of strike, with the required contents, should be
filed with the DOLE, specifically the Regional Branch of
the NCMB, copy furnished the employer of the union;
A cooling-off period must be observed between the filing
of notice and the actual execution of the strike thirty
(30) days in case of bargaining deadlock and fifteen (15)
days in case of unfair labor practice. However, in the
case of union busting where the union's existence is
threatened, the cooling-off period need not be observed.
Before a strike is actually commenced, a strike vote
should be taken by secret balloting, with a 24-hour prior
notice to NCMB. The decision to declare a strike requires
the secret-ballot approval of majority of the total union
membership in the bargaining unit concerned.
The result of the strike vote should be reported to the
NCMB at least seven (7) days before the intended strike
or lockout, subject to the cooling-off period.
The provisions hardly leave any room for doubt that the
cooling-off period in Art. 264(c) and the seven-day strike
