BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION), TINIG AT LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA SA BLTBCO-NAFLU and its reinstated one hundred ninety (190) members, namely, BIENVENIDO PAGKATUTUHAN, GIL A. ALANO, ANGELITO CALISIHAN, CARLOS CORTEZ, RUSTICO PANTOJA, RICO M.…
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 101858
- Promulgated: 1992-08-21
- Ponente: Cruz, J.
Doctrine
The mere filing of charges against an employee for alleged illegal acts during a strike does not, by itself, justify dismissal; charges must be proved at an investigation where the employee may defend himself.
The right to strike is constitutionally recognized and must be exercised with care and according to applicable rules to protect all concerned.
Facts
On 23 May 1988 the union Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTB Co. NAFLU filed a Notice of Strike against Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (BLTBCo) alleging unfair labor practice and CBA violation.
BLTBCo petitioned the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction or certify the dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, and moved to dismiss the notice of strike on 3 August 1988.
The NLRC dismissed the union's unfair labor practice and union-busting charge, ordered BLTBCo to implement CBA provisions on uniforms and safety shoes, and declared certain casual employees regular after one year service.
The NLRC directed reinstatement of specifically named union members and striking employees who had not committed illegal acts; the order was made immediately executory and a TRO was denied.
Issues
Whether the union's charge of unfair labor practice and union busting against BLTBCo should be sustained.
Whether BLTBCo may dismiss employees merely because charges were filed against them for alleged illegal acts during a strike without proof after investigation and opportunity to defend.
Whether the Court should order reinstatement of union members and striking employees who have not committed illegal acts.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed; the resolutions dated 19 July 1991 and 16 September 1991 are affirmed; the TRO dated 6 November 1991 is lifted; costs against petitioner.
The charge of unfair labor practice and union busting against BLTBCo is dismissed for lack of merit.
BLTBCo is ordered to fully implement CBA provisions on uniform and safety shoes, and certain casual employees who rendered at least one year are declared regular.
Respondent is directed to reinstate the specifically named union members and striking employees who have not committed illegal acts; reinstatement order is immediately executory and further motions for reconsideration are disallowed.
Keywords
G.R. No. 101858, unfair labor practice, violation of the CBA, Notice of Strike, compulsory arbitration, certification order, en banc resolution, return-to-work order, illegal dismissal, union busting, reinstatement without loss of seniority rights but without backwages, illegal acts, regular employment of casual employees, Motion for Reconsideration, immediately executory, august, september, bltbco, strike, return