Santa Rosa Coca Cola Plant Employees Union v. Coca-cola Bottlers, GR Nos.

164302-03, January
24, 2007

The Sta. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union (Union) is the sole and exclusive bargaining
representative of the regular daily paid workers and the monthly paid non-commission-earning
employees of the Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (Company). The Union and the Company
had entered into a three-year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective July 1, 1996 to
expire on June 30, 1999. Upon the expiration of the CBA, the Union informed the Company of its
desire to renegotiate its terms.

The Union insisted that representatives from the Alyansa ng mga Unyon sa Coca-Cola be allowed
to sit down as observers in the CBA meetings. the Company was of the view that the members of
the Alyansa were not members of the bargaining unit. The Alyansa was a mere aggregate of
employees of the Company in its various plants; and is not a registered labor organization. Thus,
an impasse ensued.

On August 30, 1999, the Union, its officers, directors and six shop stewards filed a "Notice of
Strike" with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) Regional Office in Southern
Tagalog, Imus, Cavite. The petitioners relied on two grounds: (a) deadlock on CBA ground rules;
and (b) unfair labor practice arising from the company's refusal to bargain. The Union then filed
an Amended Notice of Strike on September 17, 1999 on the following grounds: (a) unfair labor
practice for the company's refusal to bargain in good faith; and (b) interference with the exercise
of their right to self-organization.

September 15, 1999, the Union decided to participate in a mass action organized by the Alyansa
ng mga Unyon sa Coca-Cola in front of the Company's premises set for September 21, 1999.
Certain that its operations in the plant would come to a complete stop since there were no
sufficient trained contractual employees who would take over, the Company disapproved all
leave applications and notified the applicants accordingly.6 A day before the mass action, some
Union members wore gears, red tag cloths stating "YES KAMI SA STRIKE." Thus, the Union officers
and members held a picket along the front perimeter of the plant on September 21, 1999. All of
the 14 personnel of the Engineering Section of the Company did not report for work, and 71
production personnel were also absent. As a result, only one of the three bottling lines operated
during the day shift. All the three lines were operated during the night shift with cumulative
downtime of five (5) hours due to lack of manning, complement and skills requirement. The
volume of production for the day was short by 60,000 physical case.

On October 13, 1999, the Company filed a "Petition to Declare Strike Illegal. The Company prayed
that judgment be rendered as follows:

1. Declaring the strike illegal;

Issue: Whether or not the petition to declare the strike illegal should be granted?

Decision:

Yes, the union staged a strike on Sept. 21, 1999, and not merely a picket.The term “strike”
encompasses not only concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sit-downs,
attempts to damage, destroy or sabotage plant equipment and facilities, and similar activities.

For a strike to be valid, the following procedural requisites provided by Art. 263 of the Labor Code
must be observed:
(a) a notice of strike filed with the DOLE 30 days before the intended date thereof, or 15
days in case of unfair labor practice;
(b) strike vote approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit
concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose,
(c) notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven days before the
intended strike.

It is clear in this case that petitioners totally ignored the statutory requirements and embarked
on their illegal strike. There is no evidence on record to show that respondents had complied
with the above mandatory requirements of law for a valid strike. Petitioners notified the
respondent of their intention to stage a strike, and not merely to picket. Petitioners’ insistence to
stage a strike is evident in the fact that an amended notice to strike was filed even as respondent
moved to dismiss the first notice. The bare fact that petitioners were given a Mayor’s permit is
not conclusive evidence that their action/activity did not amount to strike. The Mayor’s
description of what activities petitioners were allowed to conduct is inconsequential.

Aside from the above infirmity, the strike staged by respondents was, further, in violation of the
CBA which stipulated under Section 1, Article VI, thereof that,

SECTION 1. The UNION agrees that there shall be no strike, walkout, stoppage or
slowdown of work, boycott, secondary boycott, refusal to handle any merchandise, picketing,
sitdown strikes of any kind, sympathetic or general strike, or any other interference with any
of the operations of the COMPANY during the term of this Agreement, so long as the
grievance procedure for which provision is made herein is followed by the COMPANY.

STRIKE v PICKET
Article 212(o) of the Labor Code defines strike as a temporary stoppage of work by the concerted
action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. In Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals
the Court ruled that "the fact that the conventional term 'strike' was not used by the striking
employees to describe their common course of action is inconsequential, since the substance of
the situation, and not its appearance, will be deemed to be controlling." The term "strike"
encompasses not only concerted work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sit-downs,
attempts to damage, destroy or sabotage plant equipment and facilities, and similar activities.

Picketing involves merely the marching to and fro at the premises of the employer, usually
accompanied by the display of placards and other signs making known the facts involved in a
labor dispute.34 As applied to a labor dispute, to picket means the stationing of one or more
persons to observe and attempt to observe. The purpose of pickets is said to be a means of
peaceable persuasion.

Lastly, for knowingly participating in an illegal strike or participates in the commission of illegal
acts during a strike, the law provides that a union officer may be terminated from employment.
The law makes a distinction between union members and union officers. A worker merely
participating in an illegal strike may not be terminated from employment. It is only when he
commits illegal acts during a strike that he may be declared to have lost employment status.

Petitioners who are shop stewards are considered union officers. In this case, instead of playing
the role of “peacemakers” and grievance solvers, the petitioners-shop stewards participated in
the strike. Thus, like the officers and directors of petitioner Union who joined the strike,
petitioners-shop stewards also deserve the penalty of dismissal from their employment.

Goya Inc. v. Goya Employees’ Union, GR No. 170054, January 21, 2013

Facts:
Sometime in January 2004, petitioner Goya, Inc. (Company), a domestic corporation engaged in
the manufacture, importation, and wholesale of top quality food products, hired contractual
employees from PESO Resources Development Corporation (PESO) to perform temporary and
occasional services in its factory in Parang, Marikina City. This prompted respondent Goya, Inc.
Employees UnionFFW (Union) to request for a grievance conference on the ground that the
contractual workers do not belong to the categories of employees stipulated in the existing
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).5 When the matter remained unresolved, the grievance
was referred to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) for voluntary arbitration.

ection 4, Article I of the CBA, which provides for three categories of employees in the Company,
to wit:cralawlibrary

Section 4. Categories of Employees. The parties agree on the following categories of employees:
(a) Probationary Employee. One hired to occupy a regular rank-and-file position in the
Company and is serving a probationary period. If the probationary employee is hired or
comes from outside the Company (non-Goya, Inc. employee), he shall be required to undergo
a probationary period of six (6) months, which period, in the sole judgment of management,
may be shortened if the employee has already acquired the knowledge or skills required of
the job. If the employee is hired from the casual pool and has worked in the same position at
any time during the past two (2) years, the probationary period shall be three (3) months.

(b) Regular Employee. An employee who has satisfactorily completed his probationary
period and automatically granted regular employment status in the Company.

(c) Casual Employee, One hired by the Company to perform occasional or seasonal work
directly connected with the regular operations of the Company, or one hired for specific
projects of limited duration not connected directly with the regular operations of the
Company.

With the hiring of contractual employees, the Union contended that it would no longer have
probationary and casual employees from which it could obtain additional Union members; thus,
rendering inutile Section 1, Article III (Union Security) of the CBA,

Issue: Whether or not the Company is guilty of unfair labor acts in engaging the services of PESO,
a third party service provider, under the existing CBA, laws, and jurisprudence?

Decision:
No, While the engagement of PESO is in violation of Section 4, Article I of the CBA, it does not
constitute unfair labor practice as it (sic) not characterized under the law as a gross violation of
the CBA. Violations of a CBA, except those which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated
as unfair labor practice

The Company justified its engagement of contractual employees through PESO as a management
prerogative, which is not prohibited by law. Also, it further alleged that no provision under the
CBA limits or prohibits its right to contract out certain services in the exercise of management
prerogatives.

However, the CBA of the parties has already provided for the categories of the employees in the
Companys’ establishment. These categories of employees particularly with respect to casual
employees serve as limitation to the Company’s prerogative to outsource parts of its operations
especially when hiring contractual employees. As stated earlier, the work to be performed by
PESO was similar to that of the casual employees. With the provision on casual employees, the
hiring of PESO contractual employees, therefore, is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of
their CBA.

The management prerogative of contracting out services, however, is not without limitation. In
contracting out services, the management must be motivated by good faith and the contracting
out should not be resorted to circumvent the law or must not have been the result of malicious
arbitrary actions. Thus, the company is directed to observe and comply with its commitment as it
pertains to the hiring of casual employees when necessitated by business circumstances