The union went on strike against Moldex Products in May 1993 without submitting the results of their strike vote to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board as required by law, making the strike illegal. During the strike, the union barricaded the company gates and committed acts of violence, threats, and coercion against employees and property. While the union claimed they held a strike vote, they did not provide evidence of the results. The court ruled the strike was illegal for failing to follow proper procedural requirements and for the violent acts committed by the union during the strike.
The union went on strike against Moldex Products in May 1993 without submitting the results of their strike vote to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board as required by law, making the strike illegal. During the strike, the union barricaded the company gates and committed acts of violence, threats, and coercion against employees and property. While the union claimed they held a strike vote, they did not provide evidence of the results. The court ruled the strike was illegal for failing to follow proper procedural requirements and for the violent acts committed by the union during the strike.
The union went on strike against Moldex Products in May 1993 without submitting the results of their strike vote to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board as required by law, making the strike illegal. During the strike, the union barricaded the company gates and committed acts of violence, threats, and coercion against employees and property. While the union claimed they held a strike vote, they did not provide evidence of the results. The court ruled the strike was illegal for failing to follow proper procedural requirements and for the violent acts committed by the union during the strike.
The union went on strike against Moldex Products in May 1993 without submitting the results of their strike vote to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board as required by law, making the strike illegal. During the strike, the union barricaded the company gates and committed acts of violence, threats, and coercion against employees and property. While the union claimed they held a strike vote, they did not provide evidence of the results. The court ruled the strike was illegal for failing to follow proper procedural requirements and for the violent acts committed by the union during the strike.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
COMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE LABOR CODE
G.R. No. 119467. February 1, 2000
SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA MOLDEX PRODUCTS, INC., Petitioners, v. NLRC, LA, MOLDEX PRODUCTS, INC., Respondents.
In the earlier part of 1993, Union and Moldex negotiated for the renewal of their Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA"). Due to some economic differences, the negotiations ended in a deadlock. April 2, 1993 - petitioners filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board ("NCMB"). The series of conferences proved unavailing. April 24, 1993 - petitioner Union conducted a strike vote among its members, and the results of the voting were thereafter conveyed to the Alliance of Nationalist and Genuine Labor Organization ("ANGLO") for submission to the NCMB, but for some unknown reason, the same was not made. May 5, 1993 - petitioners went on strike without the report of the strike vote submitted to the NCMB. June 17, 1993 – Moldex filed a "Petition to Declare Strike Illegal and Authorize Dismissal of the Officers and Other Employees for Illegal Acts" with the National Labor Relations Commission ("NLRC"). The petition alleged that the Union barricaded the three gates of Moldex and committed acts of violence, threats and coercion. A Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") was later issued. After efforts to reach an amicable settlement failed, trial on the merits was conducted, with the Moldex presenting their own witnesses and evidence. The Union did not present any witness but instead, relied on their Memorandum, contending that Moldex’s pieces of evidence are inadmissible, for being hearsay, and that the pictures presented were neither identified nor authenticated by the photographer or an eyewitness.
ISSUE: WON the Union has observed Procedural Due Process and committed illegal acts in their conduct of strike?
RULING: LA - the strike staged by the Union is hereby declared illegal for the aforementioned reasons and committed prohibited acts in the course of the strike. Union is hereby ordered to remove all obstructions barring free ingress to and egress from company premises. NLRC – both parties were not able to submit crucial evidence in support of their respective contentions. In keeping with the principles of fair play and equity, respondents be extended a final opportunity to produce the strike vote and the results thereof in evidence before the Labor Arbiter of origin. Moldex - no evidence is there to support its claim that the Union was sent with notices. Union - insistent in their posture that a strike vote had been conducted and the same is in the custody of the federation.
It has been shown that the results of the strike-vote were never forwarded to the NCMB, as admitted by the Union themselves and as attested to by a Certification of Non-Submission of Strike Vote issued by the NCMB. There is thus no need for additional evidence on the matter, as it would not change the fact that the results of the strike-vote were not submitted to the NCMB. Without the submission of the results of the strike- vote, the strike was illegal, pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor Code, which reads: "ART. 264. Prohibited activities. -- (a) No labor organization or employer shall declare a strike or lockout without first having bargained collectively in accordance with Title VII of this Book or without first having filed the notice required in the preceding Article or without the necessary strike or lockout vote first having been obtained and reported to the Ministry. Neither is there any need to remand the case to determine whether the Union was sent with notices or copies of the petition and whether the service of a copy of Moldex’s formal offer of evidence with the federation, ANGLO, instead of Union's counsel, was valid. In their Memorandum the Union deny ever making such a claim. And if ever they made such claim, they are now waiving such irregularity, dispensing with the need of resolving the same. It is therefore established that the result of the strike-vote was not submitted to the NCMB making the strike staged by petitioners illegal, in accordance with Article 264 of the Labor Code. The requirements of procedural due process had been complied with. Union and Moldex were allowed to present their witnesses and evidence. Moldex presented their witnesses, while Union did not, opting instead to file a Memorandum, challenging the admissibility of Moldex’s pieces of evidence. So long as a party is given an opportunity to be heard and to submit his evidence, the requirements of procedural due process are complied with. Anent the Solicitor General's stance that the strike conducted by petitioners was illegal, the records of the case and the proceedings before Labor Arbiter confirm the same. Aside from not submitting the result of the strike-vote to the NCMB, petitioners also committed acts of violence, threats, coercion and intimidation during the strike. The foregoing evidence undoubtedly proves that indeed respondents blocked free ingress to and egress from the company premises by way of physical obstructions, human blockades, acts of violence, coercion, threats and intimidation. Threw stones at company vehicles containing employees who wanted to report for work Employees formed a human barricade which prevented employees who wished to work from entering the premises Threw stones at the Injection and Films& Sheets Building breaking the window panes Engineering Supervisor Fidel Santiago was threatened Switched off the circuit breaker to render company machines inoperable Employee was coerced by Union President to stop working Employees were coerced to stop working, barricaded the gates and prohibited them from returning to work Employees were threatened with bodily harm by union officers and members forcing them to leave the plant for fear of bodily harm. Hollow blocks were stacked and tents built across the gate Human blockade barring a bus carrying other employees who wanted to report for work from entering company premises. Wooden posts and big stones and rocks were thrown to bar a bus from entering the company premises.
