Scribd
Upload
701 views

First City Interlink Vs Roldan-Confesor

The union representing employees of Fil Transit filed two notices of strike alleging unfair labor practices by the company. Conciliation conferences were held but failed to reach an agreement, so the union went on strike. The Secretary of Labor ruled the strike was legal and awarded back wages to strikers. However, the Supreme Court ruled the strike was illegal because there was no evidence a strike vote was conducted and reported as required. Even if a vote was taken, the union did not observe the mandatory seven-day cooling off period before striking. The strike was also in bad faith as the union went on strike instead of continuing conciliation. Violent illegal acts accompanied the strike such as hijacking buses and damaging company property, showing the strike was deliberately

Uploaded by

Ria Francia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
701 views

First City Interlink Vs Roldan-Confesor

The union representing employees of Fil Transit filed two notices of strike alleging unfair labor practices by the company. Conciliation conferences were held but failed to reach an agreement, so the union went on strike. The Secretary of Labor ruled the strike was legal and awarded back wages to strikers. However, the Supreme Court ruled the strike was illegal because there was no evidence a strike vote was conducted and reported as required. Even if a vote was taken, the union did not observe the mandatory seven-day cooling off period before striking. The strike was also in bad faith as the union went on strike instead of continuing conciliation. Violent illegal acts accompanied the strike such as hijacking buses and damaging company property, showing the strike was deliberately

Uploaded by

Ria Francia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

106316 May 5, 1997


FIRST CITY INTERLINK TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., doing business
under the name and style FIL TRANSIT, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE
SECRETARY MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, in her capacity as
Secretary of Labor and Employment, and NAGKAKAISANG
MANGGAGAWA NG FIL TRANSIT-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR
(NMF-NFL), respondents.
FACTS: Fil Transit Employees Union filed a notice of strike with the
Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) because of alleged unfair labor
practice of petitioner company. Despite several conciliation
conferences, the parties failed to reach an agreement, the union went
on strike, as a reason several workers were dismissed.
The union filed another notice of strike alleging ULP, massive dismissal
of union officers and members, coercion of employees and violation of
workers' rights to self-organization. Conciliation conferences were
held but the union again went on strike. The then Minister of
Labor and Employment (MOLE) ordered the striking workers to return
to work. Only 66 employees were accepted, conditioned on the
submission of certain requirements.
The Secretary of Labor ruled for the legality of the strike and awarded
backwages and separation pay to the strikers. Petitioner, however,
alleged that no strike vote was obtained, the result thereof was not
reported to the MOLE, the strikers engaged in violent, illegal and
criminal acts, and it complied with the return to work order.
ISSUE : WON the strike was illegal.
HELD : Yes. It was not shown in the pleadings that a strike vote was
obtained before the declaration of strike. The statement in the same
order of the Labor Secretary that a notice of strike had been filed
because several conciliation conferences failed due to management's
consistent refusal to appear is contrary to evidence because
management was duly represented during the conciliation proceedings
prior to the strike.
Even assuming that a strike vote had been taken, the strike called by
the Union was illegal because of nonobservance by the Union of the
mandatory seven-day strike ban counted from the date the strike vote
should have been reported to the Department of Labor and
Employment up to the time the Union staged the strike on June 17,
1986. I

The union was in bad faith when it conducted the strike because
instead of attending the conciliation meetings with petitioner, it went
on strike. The strike was attended by pervasive and widespread
violence such as the hijacking of Fil-Transit buses, barricading of the
terminal in Alabang, puncturing of tires, cutting of electric wirings,
water hoses and fan belts, use of Molotov bombs, and theft of
expensive equipment such as fuel injections. The commission of these
illegal acts was neither isolated nor accidental but deliberately
employed to intimidate and harass the employer and the public.
However, only the union officers and strikers who engaged in violent,
illegal and criminal acts against the employer are deemed to have lost
their employment status in accordance with Art. 264 of the Labor
Code.

You might also like