Ponente: Fernando, J.
FACTS
In a 1964 study, Shell Philippines noted that it stood to incur savings of about P94k per year if instead of maintaining its own security guard section at its Pandacan Installation, it will hire an outside agency to perform security services. The company sheduled the implementation of this proposal by 1965.
In 1966, however, Shell Philippines and the Shell Oil Workers' Union entered into a CBA where employees of the bargaining unit, including the guards from the security guard section, were guaranteed security of tenure. Despite the CBA and panel-to-panel meeting with the Union, Shell Philippines issued a notice of reassignment to its security guards in 1967, prompting the Union to hold a strike beginning May 27 well until the issuance of a return to work order by the President of the Philippines on July 6, 1967. During this period, Shell Philippines terminated officers of the Union.
A month later, the CIR ruled that the Union's strike was illegal. It further held that in opting to dissolve its security guard section and engaging the services of an outside agency, Shell Philippines was not guilty of ULP and was in fact merely exercising its management prerogrative to determine what's efficient and best in the operations of the company.
Hence, the instant petition.
RULING
CIR ruling reversed. Union's strike was legal. Shell Philippines guilty of ULP for violating the CBA.
Whether the conduct of a strike by the Union was valid. – YES.
The ULP strike held by the Union did have the impress of validity. Clearly, Shell PH's dissolution of the security guard section and the reassignment of its regular security guards violated the express stipulations in the CBA guaranteeing the subject employees' security of tenure.
There was specific coverage concerning the security guard section in the CBA as found not only in the body thereof but in the two appendices concerning the wage schedules, as well as the premium pay and the night compensation to which the personnel in such section were entitled. It was thus an assurance of security of tenure, at least, during the lifetime of the agreement.
General concept of a strike:In the words of Justice J.B.L. Reyes, a strike is "an institutionalized factor of democratic growth." This is to foster industrial democracy. Implicit in such a concept is the recognization that concerning the ends which labor considers worth while, its wishes are ordinarily entitled to respect. Necessarily so, the choice as to when such an objective may be attained by striking likewise belongs to it. There is the rejection of the concept that an outside authority, even if governmental, should make the decisions for it as to ends which are desirable and how they may be achieved. The assumption is that labor can be trusted to determine for itself when the right to strike may be availed of in order to attain a successful fruition in their disputes with management.
On holding a strike: The Union is justified in making use of strike in its arsenal to counteract what is clearly outlawed by the Industrial Peace Act (i.e., violation of CBA). That would be one way to assure that the objectives of unionization and collective bargaining would not be thwarted. It could, of course, file a ULP case before the CIR. It is not precluded, however, from relying on its own resources to frustrate such an effort on the part of employer.
On whether a Union can be enjoined from holding a strike:The employee, tenant or laborer is inhibited from striking or walking out of his employment only when so enjoined by the CIR and after a dispute has been submitted thereto and pending award or decision by the court of such dispute. As such, even under the regime of compulsary arbitration, a strike is by no means a forbidden weapon. A strike may not be staged only when, during the pendency of an industrial dispute, the CIR has issued the proper injunction against the laborers.
On whether there should be an actual ULP before a strike is held: It is not required that there be in fact a ULP committed by the employer. It suffices, if such a belief in good faith is entertained by labor, as the inducing factor for staging a strike.
On whether a notice of strike is absolutely necessary before holding a strike:It is true that there is a requirement that before employees can hold a strike, they must first file a notice of their intention to strike. Such a requisite however, as has been repeatedly declared by this Court, does not have to be complied with in case of ULP strike, which certainly is entitled to greater judicial protection.
On strikes marred by violence:
In the present case, the following incidences of violence occurred during the Union's strike:
- the strike was marred by acts of force, intimidation and violence on the evening of June 14 and twice in the mornings of June 15 and 16, 1967 in Manila;
- with police officials stationed at the strike-bound area, molotov bombs did explode and the streets were obstructed with wooden planks containing protruding nails; and
- physical injuries appeared to have been inflicted on management personnel in the branches of Shell PH in Iloilo City as well as in Bacolod.
- Did these incidences of violence render the strike illegal? No. These events happened a month after the strike started. Except on those few days specified then, Shell PH could not allege that the strike was conducted in a manner other than peaceful. It would be unjustified, considering all the facts disclosed, to stamp the strike with illegality.
- Is violence a natural outcome of holding a strike?No. But in labor conflicts, the tension that fills the air as well as the feeling of frustration and bitterness could break out in sporadic acts of violence. In a prior case, the Court recognized that picketing can be "inherently explosive," usually attended by "the excitement, the heat and the passion of the direct participants in the labor dispute, at the peak thereof."
- Who should be responsible for violence during strikes?Individual liability should be incurred by those guilty of such acts of violence.
In failing to manifest fealty to what was stipulated in a subsisting CBA contract, Shell PH was guilty of ULP. There was no sufficient justification for Shell PH's insistence on pushing through its project of dissolving its security guard section without incurring a violation of the CBA.
The Court held that if Shell PH was indeed adamant about dissolving its security guard section, it should not have agreed to the aforesaid stipulations in the CBA, or it could have reserved the right to effect a dissolution and reassign the guards. It did not do so.
But even if we were to assume that Shell PH was not guilty of ULP, the CIR's decision of wholesale termination of employee status of all the officers of the Union is still not lawful. Such a drastic blow to a labor organization, leaving it leaderless, has serious repercussions. The immediate effect is to weaken the Union. New leaders may of course emerge.
It would not be unlikely, under the circumstances, that they would be less than vigorous in the prosecution of labor's claims. They may be prove to fall victims to counsels of timidity and apprehension. At the forefront of their consciousness must be an awareness that a mistaken move could well mean their discharge from employment. That would be to render the right to self-organization illusory.
Whether Shell PH is well within its right to promote efficiency and attain economy in its operations, including the choice of who to employ and who to dismiss. – YES, but...
To Shell PH belongs the ultimate determination of whether services should be performed by its personnel or contracted to outside agencies. While management has the final say on such matter, the labor union is not to be completely left out.
In the present case, what was done by Shell PH in informing the Union as to the step it was intending to take on the proposed dissolution of the security guard section to be replaced by an outside agency is praise-worthy. There should be mutual consultation if deference is to be paid to what management decides. But what was stipulated in an existing CBA certainly precluded Shell PH from carrying out what otherwise would have been within its prerogative if to do so would be violative thereof.
CONCURRING OPINION
Barredo, J.
Agrees with the main decision:(a) that the strike held by the Union was legal (see caveat below); and (b) the individual sanctions against the employees responsible for the violence that erupted during the strike were justified.
Contrary to the main decision, J. Barredo believes:
- that Shell PH did not commit ULP; the transfer of the 18 security guards concerned was not a violation of the CBA as said move was not tinged by any anti-labor hue. Too, Shell PH had from the very beginning informed the Union about its plan of dissolving its security guard section. In fact, other sections of Shell PH in Pandacan had already been contracted out, but the Union did not object to the previous ones.
- there was no factual basis to believe that the 18 security guards will be suffering from economic loss with their reassignment; and
- technically, the strike was illegal since Shell PH did not commit any ULP. Nonetheless, Justice Barredo said he was not ready to conclude that for this reason, the strike in question was illegal since it was premised on the sincere and honest belief that there was a legal breach of the CBA. That there was no such infringement did not of necessity stamp the said strike with the stigma of illegality.
A strike is an institutionalized factor of democratic growth aimed at fostering industrial democracy. Implicit in such a concept is the recognition that concerning the ends which labor considers worthwhile, its wishes are ordinarily entitled to respect. Necessarily so, the choice as to when such an objective may be attained by striking likewise belongs to it. There is the rejection of the concept that an outside authority, even if governmental, should make the decisions for it as to ends which are desirable and how they may be achieved. The assumption is that labor can be trusted to determine for itself when the right to strike may be availed of in order to attain a successful fruition in their disputes with management.