Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    Law 1

    Uploaded by

    VIRGILIO JR FABI
    The document discusses a case regarding whether a strike by employees was illegal due to alleged illegal acts and violation of a no-strike clause. It analyzes the issues and holds that the strike was illegal due to repeated harassment, threats, and placards with vulgar statements by union members against company officials and non-striking employees during the strike.

    Copyright:

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

    Law 1

    Uploaded by

    VIRGILIO JR FABI
    23 views3 pages
    The document discusses a case regarding whether a strike by employees was illegal due to alleged illegal acts and violation of a no-strike clause. It analyzes the issues and holds that the strike was illegal due to repeated harassment, threats, and placards with vulgar statements by union members against company officials and non-striking employees during the strike.

    Original Title

    Law1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case regarding whether a strike by employees was illegal due to alleged illegal acts and violation of a no-strike clause. It analyzes the issues and holds that the strike was illegal due to repeated harassment, threats, and placards with vulgar statements by union members against company officials and non-striking employees during the strike.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    23 views3 pages

    Law 1

    Uploaded by

    VIRGILIO JR FABI
    The document discusses a case regarding whether a strike by employees was illegal due to alleged illegal acts and violation of a no-strike clause. It analyzes the issues and holds that the strike was illegal due to repeated harassment, threats, and placards with vulgar statements by union members against company officials and non-striking employees during the strike.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    9:13 ROLE

    x @ Soriano Aviation Vs Employees | PDF | Strike Ac... et

    scribd.com

    Issue:

    1. Whether or not the strike staged by employees is illegal due to alleged


    commission of

    illegal acts and violation of No-Strike, No Lock-out clause— YES.

    2. Whether or not they have lost their employment status -- Remanded


    Held/Ratio:

    Issue #1:

    It cannot be gainsaid that by the above-enumerated undisputed acts, the Union


    committed illegal acts during the strike. The Union members’ repeated name
    calling, harassment and threats of bodily harm directed against company offi
    and non-striking employees and, more significantly, the putting up of placards,
    banners and streamers with vulgar statements imputing criminal negligence to the
    company, which put to doubt reliability of its operations, come within the purview
    of illegal acts under Art, 264 and jurisprudence.

    That the alleged acts of violence were committed in nine non-consecutive days
    during the almost eight months that the strike was on-going does not render
    the violence less pervasive or widespread to be excusable. Nowhere in Art. 264
    does it require that violence must be continuous or that it should be for the
    entire
    duration of the strike.

    The appellate court took against petitioner its filing of its complaint to have the
    strike declared illegal almost eight months from the time it commenced. Art. 264
    does not, however, state for purposes of having a strike declared as illegal that
    the
    employer should immediately report the same. It only lists what acts are
    prohibited.
    It is thus absurd to expect an employer to file a complaint at the first instance
    that
    an act of violence is alleged to be committed, especially, as in the present case,
    when an earlier complaint to have the refusal of the individual respondents to work
    overtime declared as an illegal strike was still pending — an issue resolved in its
    favor only on September 25, 1998.
    ow that the Union went on strike on October 22, 1997, and the first
    sment incident occurred on October 29, 1997, while the last occurred
    in January, 1998. Those instances may have been sporadic, but as found by the
    Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, the display of placards, streamers and banners
    even up to the time the appeal was being resolved by the NLRC works against
    the Union’s favor.

    The acts complained of including the display of placards and banners imputing
    criminal negligence on the part of the company and its officers, apparently with
    the
    end in view of intimidating the company’s clientele, are, given the nature of its
    business, that serious as to make the “second strike” illegal. Specifically with
    respect to the putting up of those banners and placards, coupled with the name-
    calling and harassment, the same indicates that it was resorted to to coerce the
    resolution of the dispute — the very evil which Art, 264 seeks to prevent.

    You might also like