ferrer vs. cir

8/9/2019 Ferrer vs. CIR

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ferrer-vs-cir 1/4

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

ManilaEN BANC

G.R. Nos. L-24267-8 May 31, 1966

PERFECTO FERRER, OSCAR FLORES, JULAN AGUSTN, FELCSMO LC!UCA, POSUMAGT a"# N!EL$ER LA%ORATORES, NC. a"# SSTER COMPANES EMPLO&EESUNON, petitioners, vs.COURT OF N$USTRAL RELATONS, N!EL$ER LA%ORATORES, NC., SAN RO'UETRA$NG CORPORATON AN$(OR !ANS N!EL$ER, PRES$ENT AN$ GENERALMANAGER, respondents.

These are two (! unfair labor practice cases co""enced in the C#R$R. No. %&') & was *led b+ the Manae"ent of #nhelder %aboratories, #nc. aainst the%abor -nion of e"plo+ees and so"e ocers and "e"bers of the -nion

$R. No.%&'/& *led b+ the latter aainst the for"er.

cases were 0ointl+ tried.

Fa)*s+

• 1on. Ansberto P. Paredes, the trial 0ude, rendered a decision dis"issin the

co"plaints in both cases.

• 2n "otion for reconsideration *led b+ the Manae"ent, the Court of #ndustrial

Relations en banc, dis"issed the co"plaint. 3ecreed that the ocers and "e"bersof the -nion who had participated in a peaceful stri4e staed b+ the latter fro" 5ul+ 6to 5ul+ 67, 689, :be considered to have lost their status as e"plo+ees of theco"panies:.

• March /, 689 ; i""ediatel+ after an election, which the -nion obtained the

re<uisites "a0orit+, it sub"itted to the "anae"ent a set of de"ands for a CBA. This

led to neotiations and a draft of aree"ent were incorporated. 3ue to additionalpoints, another draft of aree"ent was prepared.

• Ma+ 8, 689 ; another draft was drawn to which the Manae"ent refers as =*nal

draft>. 1owever, petitioners? representatives pressed for the inclusion of a unionclause, an accu"ulated sic4 leave clause, and an accu"ulated vacation leave clause,apart fro" the increase of the hih cost of livin "onthl+ allowance fro" P@.@@ toP9@.@@, the creation of a rievance co""ittee and a eneral salar+ increase. henthe unions re<uest for the inclusion of a union shop or union securit+ clause was notincorporated, it refused to sin the aree"ent.

• 5une /, 689 ; the Manae"ent sent a "e"orandu" to all of its e"plo+ees,purportin to infor" the" of the status of the neotiations with their representatives,and statin that the latter had refused to sin the draft of aree"ent copies ofwhich were "ade available to all e"plo+ees and instead :ca"e with a

new de"and ?-nion Dhop? : upon the round that such was the desire of the-nion "e"bers, who had alleedl+ disauthoried the ocers of the -nion.

• 5une 6@&67, 689 & several "e"bers of the -nion resined.

• 5une 69, 689 & Petitioners *led a 9@&da+ notice of stri4e. (ReasonF Respondents had

been :barainin in bad faith:!. 1owever, the Manae"ent, in turn, *led unfair laborpractice chares aainst the -nion, for alleed refusal to barain.

• 5une 6@ to 5une , 689 the Manae"ent had transferred "e"bers of the

-nion, suspended a third one and assined still another to a wor4 less dini*ed thanthat which he did before.



• 5une ', 689 & Petitioners *led an unfair labor practice chare aainst the

Manae"ent, for the suspension or de"otion of union "e"bers due alleedl+ tounion activities.

• 5une 7, 689 & -nion ave another notice of stri4e upon the round that the

Manae"ent was enaed in unfair labor practices, b+ suspendin, de"otin,inti"idatin and coercin union "e"bers, on account of their union activities.

• 5ul+ 6 to 5ul+ 67, 689 ; in accordance with a stri4e vote, the -nion staed a stri4e.

ss+ON */ s*0 as 5a.

R"5+

RespondentsFMaintained that petitioner failed to ive a9@&da+ notice of their intention to stri4eand the stri4e had alleedl+ been called inbad faith.

PetitionersFDtri4e was leal because it was provo4edb+ alleed unfair labor practices on thepart of the respondents and because saidpetitioners had acted in ood faith instain said stri4e.



C#R en banc

The stri4e staed was not provo4ed b+ -%P on the part of the Manae"ent. Dince 9@

da+s had not elapsed since appellants had iven the correspondin notice, the stri4e wasilleal and those who too4 part in it are dee"ed separated fro" the service.

The trial 0ude held otherwise. Petitioners were reasonabl+ 0usti*ed in believin thatthe respondents? acts constituted -%P and that petitioners had to stri4e in order to arrest theevil eGects of said practices upon the -nion and its "e"bers.

Dupre"e Court

e are inclined to aree with the latter view. The fact that both parties aHed theirinitials to the :draft: does not necessaril+ prove that the sa"e was "ore :*nal: than the:*nal draft:. The drafts sined was no "ore than a draft of contract, not a contract in itself.

#t is not true that petitioners had "ade new de"ands. The de"and for a union shopor union securit+ clause, which was the "ain bone of contention, had been included in thedraft of aree"ent. hat happened, "erel+, was that the de"ands incorporated in saiddraft were discussed b+ both parties, one after the otherI that an aree"ent on the for"erdid not connote an abandon"ent of the latterI and that, after the settle"ent of one issue, itwas understood that the others would be ta4en up thereafter.hen the -nion "e"bers learned that said docu"ent did not include the union shop orunion securit+ clause, they withdrew from their representatives the authority to sign, ontheir behalf, the collective bargaining agreement with the Management . -nder thesecircu"stances, said representatives could not validl+ sin said aree"ent, and their refusalto do so is not and cannot be an act of bad faith.

Neither "a+ the -nion "e"bers be held to have acted in bad faith in so withdrawinsaid authorit+ fro" their representatives, unless the clause afore"entioned were included inthe aree"ent, since that clause was part of their oriinal de"ands and theirrepresentatives could not waive it without their consent.

Althouh the Manae"ent "a+ have had the strict leal riht to ta4e aainst union"e"bers the disciplinar+ and other ad"inistrative "easures, there is no den+in the factthat the time chosen by the Management reasonabl+ 0usti*ed the belief of the -nion that itsreal or "ain purpose was to discourae "e"bership in the -nion, to discredit the ocers.

The Court holds thatF

• the stri4e in <uestion had been called to oGset what petitioners were warranted in

believin in ood faith to be unfair labor practices on the part of Manae"entI

• petitioners were not bound to wait for the eHpiration of thirt+ (9@! da+s fro" notice of

stri4e before stain the sa"eI

• said stri4e was not illealI

• the stri4ers had not lost their status as e"plo+ees of respondents herein.

Considerin that the latter have been absolved fro" the chare of unfair labor practice,the reinstate"ent of the stri4ers "ust be without bac4pa+.

herefore, the resolution appealed fro" should be, as it is hereb+ "odi*ed accordinl+,without special pronounce"ent as to costs. #t is so ordered.

ferrer vs. cir

Documents