Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 577 views

    First City Interlink Vs Roldan-Confesor

    Uploaded by

    Ria Kriselle Francia Pabale
    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

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    First City Interlink Vs Roldan-Confesor

    Uploaded by

    Ria Kriselle Francia Pabale
    577 views2 pages
    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

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    First City Interlink vs Roldan-Confesor

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    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

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    577 views2 pages

    First City Interlink Vs Roldan-Confesor

    Uploaded by

    Ria Kriselle Francia Pabale
    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

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 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