Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 157 views

    C. Alcantara and Sons vs. CA, Et. Al

    Uploaded by

    Lyselle Rambac
    The Union staged a strike despite a "no strike, no lockout" provision in their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the Company. The Company claimed the strike was illegal due to the CBA provision. The Court found that a strike can be considered invalid if it contradicts an existing agreement, such as a no strike clause. It upheld the lower court rulings that the strike violated the CBA and was therefore illegal. The Constitution supports using voluntary means like arbitration over economic weapons to settle disputes, consistent with the CBA signed by the Union and Company.

    Copyright:

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

    C. Alcantara and Sons vs. CA, Et. Al

    Uploaded by

    Lyselle Rambac
    157 views2 pages
    The Union staged a strike despite a "no strike, no lockout" provision in their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the Company. The Company claimed the strike was illegal due to the CBA provision. The Court found that a strike can be considered invalid if it contradicts an existing agreement, such as a no strike clause. It upheld the lower court rulings that the strike violated the CBA and was therefore illegal. The Constitution supports using voluntary means like arbitration over economic weapons to settle disputes, consistent with the CBA signed by the Union and Company.

    Original Description:

    G.R. No. 179220 September 29, 2010

    Original Title

    C. Alcantara and Sons vs. CA, Et. Al,

    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 staged a strike despite a "no strike, no lockout" provision in their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the Company. The Company claimed the strike was illegal due to the CBA provision. The Court found that a strike can be considered invalid if it contradicts an existing agreement, such as a no strike clause. It upheld the lower court rulings that the strike violated the CBA and was therefore illegal. The Constitution supports using voluntary means like arbitration over economic weapons to settle disputes, consistent with the CBA signed by the Union and Company.

    Copyright:

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

    C. Alcantara and Sons vs. CA, Et. Al

    Uploaded by

    Lyselle Rambac
    The Union staged a strike despite a "no strike, no lockout" provision in their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the Company. The Company claimed the strike was illegal due to the CBA provision. The Court found that a strike can be considered invalid if it contradicts an existing agreement, such as a no strike clause. It upheld the lower court rulings that the strike violated the CBA and was therefore illegal. The Constitution supports using voluntary means like arbitration over economic weapons to settle disputes, consistent with the CBA signed by the Union and Company.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    C. Alcantara and Sons vs. CA, et.

    al,
    G.R. No. 179220 September 29, 2010

    FACTS:

    C. Alcantara and Sons, Inc. (the Company) entered into a Collective Bargaining agreement with
    Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Alsons-SPFL (the Union), the exclusive bargaining agent of the
    Company’s rank and file employees. The CBA they entered bounds them to hold no strike and no lockout
    in the course of its life. At some point the parties began negotiating the economic provisions of their CBA
    but this ended in a deadlock, prompting the Union to file a notice of strike. After efforts at conciliation by
    the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) failed, the Union conducted a strike vote that resulted
    in an overwhelming majority of its members favoring it. The Union reported the strike vote to the DOLE
    and, after the observance of the mandatory cooling-off period, went on strike.

    The Company filed a petition with the Regional Arbitration Board to declare the Union’s strike illegal, citing
    its violation of the no strike, no lockout, provision of their CBA. Subsequently, the Company amended its
    petition to implead the named Union members who allegedly committed prohibited acts during the strike.
    For their part, the Union, its officers, and its affected members filed against the Company a counterclaim
    for unfair labor practices, illegal dismissal, and damages. The Union also assailed as invalid the service of
    summons on the individual Union members included in the amended petition.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the Union staged an illegal strike.

    HELD:

    A strike may be regarded as invalid although the labor union has complied with the strict requirements
    for staging one as provided in Article 263 of the Labor Code when the same is held contrary to an existing
    agreement, such as a no strike clause or conclusive arbitration clause. Here, the CBA between the parties
    contained a “no strike, no lockout” provision that enjoined both the Union and the Company from
    resorting to the use of economic weapons available to them under the law and to instead take recourse
    to voluntary arbitration in settling their disputes.

    No law or public policy prohibits the Union and the Company from mutually waiving the strike and lockout
    maces available to them to give way to voluntary arbitration. Indeed, no less than the 1987 Constitution
    recognizes in Section 3, Article XIII, preferential use of voluntary means to settle disputes. Thus –

    The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the
    preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their
    mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
    The Court finds no compelling reason to depart from the findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the
    CA regarding the illegality of the strike. Social justice is not one-sided. It cannot be used as a badge for
    not complying with a lawful agreement.

    You might also like