A Right Guaranteed to Employees

 Guaranteed by the Constitution and

the Labor Code
 Rightof employees to engage in
concerted activities
 To attain their legitimate objectives.
 Constitution – Article XIII, Section 3

“The State… shall guarantee the rights of all

workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful
concerted activities, including the right to
strike in accordance with law.
Q: Are all concerted actions
strikes?
Not all concerted activities are
strikes. They may only be protest
actions – they do not necessarily
cause work stoppage by the
protesters. A strike in contrast is
always a group action
accompanied by work stoppage.
DEFINITION OF STRIKE
Article 212(o) of the Labor Code:
DEFINITION OF STRIKE
DEFINITION OF STRIKE
Purpose of Strike
A worker who joins a strike does so
precisely to assert or improve the
terms and conditions of his
employment.
 If his purpose is to abandon his
work, he would not go to the
trouble of joining a strike.

*BLT Bus Co. v. NLRC

Characteristics of a strike
1. Existence of an Er‐Ee relationship
2. Existence of a labor dispute
3. Employment relation is deemed to continue although in
a state of belligerent suspension
4. Temporary work stoppage
5. Work stoppage is done through concerted action
6. The striking group is a legitimate labor organization; in
case of a bargaining deadlock, it must be the
employees’ sole bargaining representative
(1) That prohibited or unlawful acts have been threatened and
will be committed and will be continued unless restrained but no
injunction or temporary restraining order shall be issued on
account of any threat, prohibited or unlawful act, except against
the person or persons, association or organization making the
threat or committing the prohibited or unlawful act or actually
authorizing or ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof;
(2) That substantial and irreparable injury to complainants
property will follow;
(3) That as to each item of relief to be granted, greater injury will
be inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be
inflicted upon defendants by the granting of relief;
 COMPANY UNION
• Its prayer for an ex parte temporary • Its petition for injunction was filed
restraining order was heard on April on April 24, 1992, and to date, the
13, 1992 and it was granted on the records do not reveal whether the
same day. public respondent has granted or
denied the same.
• Its petition for preliminary injunction
was filed on April 30, 1992, and was
granted on May 5, 1992.
Statutory basis:
 Article 218 of the Labor Code
(a) To promote and emphasize the primacy of free
collective bargaining and negotiations, including
voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as
modes of settling labor or industrial disputes;
(b) To promote free trade unionism as an instrument
for the enhancement of democracy and the
promotion of social justice and development;
(c) To foster the free and voluntary organization of a
strong and united labor movement;
Statutory basis:
 Article 263 of the Labor Code
(a) It is the policy of the State to encourage free trade
unionism and free collective bargaining.
(b) Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted
activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their
mutual benefit and protection. The right of legitimate
labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers
to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall
continue to be recognized and respected. However, no
labor union may strike and no employer may declare a
lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union
disputes.
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM)
v. NLRC (June 27, 1991)
FACTS:
• The union known as Ilaw at Buklod Ng
Manggagawa (IBM)
• represent 4,500 employees of San Miguel
Corporation, working at the various plants,
offices, and warehouses at the National
Capital Region
• presented a "demand" for correction of the
significant distortion in the workers' wages.
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM)
v. NLRC (June 27, 1991)
• In that demand, the Union explicitly invoked Section 4 (d)
of RA 6727 which reads as follows:

“Where the application of the increases in the wage rates

under this Section results in distortions as defined under
existing laws in the wage structure within an establishment
and gives rise to a dispute therein, such dispute shall first be
settled voluntarily between the parties and in the event of a
deadlock, the same shall be finally resolved through
compulsory arbitration by the regional branches of the
National Labor Relations Commission having jurisdiction over
the workplace….
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM)
v. NLRC (June 27, 1991)

… It shall be mandatory for the NLRC to conduct

continuous hearings and decide any dispute arising
under this Section within twenty (20) calendar days
from the time said dispute is formally submitted to it
for arbitration. The pendency of a dispute arising
from a wage distortion shall not in any way delay
the applicability of the increase in the wage rates
prescribed under this Section. ”
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM)
v. NLRC (June 27, 1991)

Issue:

Whether or not the strike is legal in the

resolution of wage distortion.
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM)
v. NLRC (June 27, 1991)

Ruling:

• The strike involving the issue of wage

distortion is illegal as a means of
resolving it.
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM)
v. NLRC (June 27, 1991)

The legality of these activities is usually

dependent on the legality of the
purposes sought to be attained and the
means employed therefore. It goes
without saying that these joint or
coordinated activities may be forbidden
or restricted by law or contract.
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM)
v. NLRC (June 27, 1991)

In the instance of "distortions of the wage structure

within an establishment" resulting from "the
application of any prescribed wage increase by
virtue of a law or wage order," Section 3 of Republic
Act No. 6727 prescribes a specific, detailed and
comprehensive procedure for the correction
thereof, thereby implicitly excluding strikes or
lockouts or other concerted activities as modes of
settlement of the issue.
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM)
v. NLRC (June 27, 1991)
The employer and the union shall:
• negotiate to correct the distortions

Any dispute arising from wage distortions shall be

resolved through:
• grievance procedure under their collective
bargaining agreement
• if it remains unresolved, through voluntary
arbitration
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM)
v. NLRC (June 27, 1991)
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties in writing,
such dispute shall be decided by the voluntary
arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators within ten
(10) calendar days from the time said dispute was
referred to voluntary arbitration.

In cases where there are no collective agreements

or recognized labor unions, the employers and
workers shall endeavor to correct such distortions.
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM)
v. NLRC (June 27, 1991)
Any dispute arising there from shall be settled
through the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board and, if it remains unresolved after ten (10)
calendar days of conciliation, shall be referred to
the appropriate branch of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC).
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM)
v. NLRC (June 27, 1991)
It shall be mandatory for the NLRC to conduct
continuous hearings and decide the dispute within
twenty (20) calendar days from the time said
dispute is submitted for compulsory arbitration.

The pendency of a dispute arising from a wage

distortion shall not in any way delay the applicability
of any increase in prescribed wage rates pursuant
to the provisions of law or Wage Order.
Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM)
v. NLRC (June 27, 1991)
The legislative intent is made clear in the rules implementing
RA 6727 issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment
pursuant to the authority granted by Section 13 of the Act.
Section 16, Chapter I of these implementing rules, after
reiterating the policy that wage distortions be first settled
voluntarily by the parties and eventually by compulsory
arbitration, declares that, "Any issue involving wage distortion
shall not be a ground for a strike/lockout."
 Tinig
at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTB
Co. NAFLU, an affiliate of NAFLU, filed a
Notice of Strike against the Batangas
Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (BLTB
Co.) on the grounds of unfair labor
practice and violation of the CBA
 BLTBCO ask the Secretary of Labor to assume
jurisdiction over the dispute or to certify it to
the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. The
petitioner also moved to dismiss the notice of
strike on August 3, 1988.
 Effortsat amicable settlement having failed,
Acting Labor Secretary C. Castro certified
the dispute to the NLRC on August 29, 1988
 A copy of the certification order was served
upon NAFLU. The union secretary, however,
refused to receive it.
 The officers and members of TLM-BLTBCo-
NAFLU went on strike.
 The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the
employees to stop the strike.
 BLTBCo caused the publication of the
resolution and called on all striking workers to
return to work.
 Of the some 1,730 BLTBCo employees who went
on strike, only 1,116 reported back for work. 17
others were later re-admitted.
 Subsequently, about 614 employees, including
those who were allegedly dismissed for causes
other than the strike, filed individual complaints for
illegal dismissal.
 Their common ground was that they were refused
admission when they reported back for work.
 The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the
reinstatement of the union members.
Issue:

WON the union members who

participated in the illegal strike should
be reinstated
Held
 YES.
Reasoning:
 First, there was inadequate service of
the certification order on the union as of
the date the strike was declared and
there was no showing that the striking
members had been apprised of such
order by the NAFLU.
Second, by virtue of the principle of vicarious
liability, only the union officers deserve not to be
reinstated.
The leaders of the union are the moving force in
the declaration of the strike and the Rank-in-file
employees merely followed.
Likewise, viewed in the light of Article 264,
paragraph (e), those who participated in the
commission of illegal acts who stood charged
criminally thereof in court must be penalized.
The contention of the petitioner that the
private respondents abandoned their
position is also not acceptable. An
employee who forthwith takes steps to
protest his lay-off cannot by any logic be
said to have abandoned his work.
The loss of employment status of striking
union members is limited to those "who
knowingly participates in the commission
of illegal acts." (Article 264, Labor Code)

Evidence must be presented to

substantiate the commission thereof and
not merely an unsubstantiated allegation.
The right to strike is one of the rights
recognized and guaranteed by the
Constitution as an instrument of labor for its
protection against exploitation by
management. By virtue of this right, the
workers are able to press their demands for
better terms of employment with more
energy and persuasiveness, poising the
threat to strike as their reaction to the
employer's intransigence.
The strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the
working class. But precisely because of this, it
must be handled carefully, like a sensitive
explosive, lest it blow up in the workers' own
hands. Thus, it must be declared only after the
most thoughtful consultation among them,
conducted in the only way allowed, that is,
peacefully, and in every case conformably to
reasonable regulation.
Any violation of the legal requirements and
strictures, such as a defiance of a return-
to-work order in industries affected with
public interest, will render the strike illegal,
to the detriment of the very workers it is
supposed to protect.
Rationale for Regulation by Law
Rationale for Regulation by Law
DEFINITION OF STRIKE
Q: What is the effect of non‐compliance with
the requisites of a strike?

A: The strike may be declared illegal.

Contents of the Notice of Strike
Scope of the term “Strike”
Sta. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union v. CCBP:
 The term “strike” encompasses not only concerted
work stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves,
sit-downs, attempts to damage, destroy or
sabotage plant equipment and facilities, and
similar activities.
Scope of the term “Strike”
Sta. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union v. CCBP:

 Picketinginvolves merely the marching to and fro

at the premises of the employer, usually
accompanied by the display of placards and
other signs making known the facts involved in a
labor dispute.
Effect on Work Relationship
Effect on Work Relationship
Effect on Work Relationship
Types of Strike

 1.Economic strike – used to secure the

economic demands such as higher wages
and better working conditions for the
workers
 2.Unfair Labor Practice strike – protest
against ULP of management
 Economic Strike ULP Strike
As to nature Voluntary strike because the Involuntary strike; the LO is
Ee will declare a strike to forced to go on strike because
compel management to of the ULP committed against
grant its demands them by the Er. It is an act of
self‐defense since the Ee’s are
being pushed to the wall and
their only remedy is to stage a
strike

Who will initiate The CB agent of the Either the CB agent or the LLO
appropriate bargaining unit in behalf of its members
can declare an economic
strike
 Economic Strike ULP Strike
As to the cooling- 30 days from notice of 15 days from the filing of the notice
off period strike before the of strike
intended date of
actual strike subject to
the 7‐ day strike ban
As to the No exception – The cooling‐off period may be
exception to the mandatory Note: dispensed with, and the union may
cooling‐off period notice of strike and take immediate action in case of
strike vote may be dismissal from employment of their
dispensed with; they officers duly elected in accordance
may strike immediately with the union’s constitution and by‐
laws, which may constitute union
busting where the existence of the
union is threatened. It must still
observe the mandatory 7‐day strike
ban period before it can stage a
Conversion

 A strike may start as economic and, as it progress,

become U.L.P., or vice-versa.
 For instance:
 The strike staged by the union was initially meant to compel the
company to grant it certain economic benefits set forth in its
proposal for collective bargaining.
 But the strike changed its character from the time the company
refused to reinstate the complainants because of their union
activities although it agreed to readmit the others.
Conversion

 The Harvardian labor law authorities explains:

“The issue of determining the cause of the strike becomes
complicated when a strike is initiated over bargaining demands
but during the course of the strike, the employer commits unfair
labor practice. Such an employer ULP practice will be held to
‘convert’ the strike beyond the date it would have terminated in
due course as an economic strike.”
Conversion
Master Iron Labor Union, Wilfredo Abulencia plus 29 others v. NLRC &
Masters Iron Works & Const. Co.
Conversion
Master Iron Labor Union, Wilfredo Abulencia plus 29 others v. NLRC &
Masters Iron Works & Const. Co.
Conversion
Master Iron Labor Union, Wilfredo Abulencia plus 29 others v. NLRC &
Masters Iron Works & Const. Co.
 The other grounds, i.e., discrimination, unreasonable suspension of
union officials and unreasonable refusal to entertain grievance,
had been ventilated before the Labor Arbiter.
 They are clearly unfair labor practices as defined in Article 248 of
the Labor Code.
 The subsequent withdrawal of petitioners' complaint for unfair labor
practice which was granted by Labor Arbiter Ceferina Diosana who
also considered the case closed and terminated may not,
therefore, be considered as having converted their other
grievance into economic demands.
Non-Conversion
(Strike to Lockout)
 Q: Can a strike be converted into a lockout?
 A: No, a strike cannot be converted into a pure
and simple lockout by the mere expedient of filing
before the trial court a notice of offer to return to
work during the pendency of the labor dispute
between the union and the employer.

(Rizal Cement Workers Union v. CIR, G.R. No. L‐18442,

Nov. 30, 1962).
What is a lockout?

 It means any temporary refusal

of an employer to furnish work as
a result of an industrial or labor
dispute. (Art. 212 [p])
Grounds for Strike
Rule XIII, OMNIBUS RULES TO IMPLEMENT THE LABOR CODE:

SECTION 1. Grounds for strike and lockout. — A strike or lockout may

be declared in cases of bargaining deadlocks and unfair labor
practices. Violations of collective bargaining agreements, except
flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with its economic
provisions, shall not be considered unfair labor practice and shall not
be strikeable. No strike or lockout may be declared on grounds
involving inter-union and internal union disputes or on issues brought
to voluntary or compulsory arbitration.
a. Unfair Labor Pratice

 Union busting, or interference with the formation of a

union, constitutes an unfair labor practice act,
hence a valid ground for the declaration of strike.
 Any ULP act under Article 258 is strikeable.
a. Unfair Labor Pratice
Davao Free Workers Front v. CIR, et. Al.
Facts:
 Following the expiration of the CBA, the petitioner union submitted
bargaining proposals for renewal of the CBA to the Davao branch
of respondent company.
 Instead of responding to such demands, the management
sponsored the organization of a new labor union, required the
members of petitioner union to join the new union, negotiated
and bargained with the new union, and executed with the latter
a new CBA.
a. Unfair Labor Pratice
Davao Free Workers Front v. CIR, et. Al.
Facts:
 When the members of petitioner union refused to accept the new
CBA, management locked out its members.
 Provoked by such acts, petitioner union called for a strike.

Issue: Is such strike valid?

Ruling: Such strike is valid, for clearly it was declared by the union as a
measure of self-defense and protection against the employer’s unfair
labor practices.
b. Bargaining Deadlock
San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC & SMC Employees Union
 It is the situation between the labor and the
management of the company where there is failure in
the collective bargaining negotiations resulting in a
stalemate.
 The situation is non-existent in the present case since
there is a Board assigned in the third level (step 3) of the
grievance machinery to resolve the conflicting views of
the parties.
b. Bargaining Deadlock
San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC & SMC Employees Union
 Instead of asking the Conciliation Board composed of 5
representatives each from the company and the union,
to decide the conflict, petitioner declared a deadlock,
and thereafter, filed a notice of strike.
 For failing to exhaust all the steps in the grievance
machinery and arbitration proceedings provided in the
CBA, the notice of strike should have been dismissed by
the NLRC and private respondent union orders to
proceed with the grievance and arbitration proceedings.
b. Bargaining Deadlock
San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC & SMC Employees Union
 In abandoning the grievance proceedings and
stubbornly refusing to avail of the remedies under the
CBA, the Union violated the mandatory provisions of the
CBA.
 Petitioner (SMC) having evinced its willingness to
negotiate the fate of the remaining employees affected,
there is no ground to sustain the notice of strike of the
union.
 Different forms of strike
 Legal Strike ‐ one called for a valid purpose and conducted through
means allowed by law.
 Illegal Strike ‐ one staged for a purpose not recognized by law, or if for a
valid purpose, conducted through means not sanctioned by law
 Economic Strike ‐ one staged by workers to force wage or other
economic concessions from the employer which he is not required by
law to grant (Consolidated Labor Association
of the Phil. vs. Marsman, G.R. No. L‐ 17038, July 31, 1964)
Different forms of strike
 ULP Strike ‐ one called to protest against the employer’s acts of unfair
practice enumerated in Article 248 of the Labor Code, as amended,
including gross violation of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
and union busting.
 Slow Down Strike ‐ one staged without the workers quitting their work
but by merely slackening or by reducing their normal work output.
 Wild‐Cat Strike ‐ one declared and staged without filing the required
notice of strike and without the majority approval of the recognized
bargaining agent.
 Sit Down Strike ‐ one where the workers stop working but do not leave
their place of work.
 Examples of Strike Legality of the Strike

Sit‐down strike – Characterized by a Illegal – Amounts to a criminal act

temporary work stoppage of workers because of the Ee’s trespass on the
who seize or occupy property of the Er premises of the Er
or refuse to vacate the premises of the
Er.

Wildcat strike – A work stoppage that Illegal –Because it fails to comply with
violates the labor contract and is not certain req’ts of the law, to wit: notice
authorized by the union. of strike, vote and report on strike vote
 Examples of Strike Legality of the Strike

Slowdown – Strike on an installment Illegal – Ees work on their own terms;

plan; an activity by which workers, while the Ees continue to work and
without complete stoppage of work, remain in their positions and accept
retard production or their performance wages paid to them, they at the same
of duties and functions to compel time select what part on their allotted
management to grant their demands tasks they care to perform on their own
volition or refuse openly or secretly

Sympathetic strike – Work stoppages of Illegal – There is no labor dispute

workers of one company to make between the workers who are joining
common cause with other strikers or the strikers and the latter’s Er
other companies without demands or
grievances of their own against the Er
 Examples of Strike Legality of the Strike

Secondary strike – Work stoppages of Illegal – There is no labor dispute

workers of one company to exert involved. Note: A strike can validly take
pressure on their Er so that the latter will place only in the presence of and in
in turn bring pressure upon the Er of relation to a labor dispute between Er
another company with whom another and Ee.
union has a labor dispute
Welga ng bayan (Cause Oriented Illegal – It is a political rally
Strikes) – A political strike and therefore
there is neither a bargaining deadlock
nor any ULP

Quickie strikes‐ brief and unannounced Illegal‐ failure to comply with notice
temporary work stoppage requirements and etc.
Tests in determining the legality of
strike
1. Purpose test – the strike must be due to either bargaining
deadlock and/or the ULP
2. Compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements of
the law.
3. Means employed test – It states that a strike may be legal at its
inception but eventually be declared illegal if the strike is
accompanied by violence which is widespread, pervasive and
adopted as a matter of policy and not mere violence which is
sporadic which normally occur in a strike area.
Non‐strikable issues
 CBA violations not gross in character
 Grounds involving inter/intra‐union disputes
 When there is no notice of strike or lockout or without the strike or
lockout vote
 After assumption of jurisdiction by the SLE
 After certification or submission of dispute to compulsory or voluntary
arbitration or during the pendency of cases involving the same
grounds for strike or lockout
 Labor standards cases such as wage orders.
 (Guidelines governing Labor Relations [Oct. 19, 1987] issued by Sec.
Drilon. See also Art. 261, LC)
Is a no strike clause legal?
 Yes, but it is applicable only to economic strikes, not ULP strikes.
 As a provision in the CBA, it is a valid stipulation although the clause
may be invoked by an employer (Er) only when the strike is
economic in nature or one which is conducted to force wage or
other concessions from the Er that are not mandated to be granted
by the law itself.
 It would be inapplicable to prevent a strike which is grounded on
ULP.
(Panay Electric Co. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 102672, Oct. 4, 1995; Malayang Samahan ng
mga Manggagawa sa Greenfield v. Ramos, G.R. No. 113907, Feb. 28, 2000)
When is a strike illegal?
1. Contrary to specific prohibition of law, such as strike by employees
(Ees) performing governmental functions;
2. Violates a specific req’t of law;
3. Declared for an unlawful purpose, such as inducing the employer
(Er) to commit ULP against non‐union Ees;
4. Employs unlawful means in the pursuit of its objective, such as
widespread terrorism of non‐strikers;
5. Declared in violation of an existing injunction;
6. Contrary to an existing agreement, such as a no strike clause or
conclusive arbitration clause
Good Faith (GF) Strike Doctrine
A strike may be considered legal where the union
believed that the company committed ULP and the
circumstances warranted such belief in GF, although
subsequently such allegations of ULP are found out
as not true.

(Bacus v. Ople, GR No. L‐56856, Oct. 23, 1984,

People’s Industrial and Commercial Ees and
Organization (FFW) v. People’s Industrial and
Commercial Corp., G.R. No.37687, Mar. 15, 1982)
Q: What is the effect of the GF of
strikers on the legality of strike?
General Rule: A strike grounded on ULP is illegal if no such acts actually
exist.
Exception : Even if no ULP acts are committed by the Er, if the Ees
believe in GF that ULP acts exist so as to constitute a valid ground to
strike, then the strike held pursuant to such belief may be legal. Where
the union believed that the Er committed ULP and the circumstances
warranted such belief in GF, the resulting strike may be considered
legal although, subsequently, such allegations of ULP were found to
be groundless.
(NUWHRAIN‐Interim Junta v. NLRC, G.R. No. 125561, Mar. 6, 1998)
Should separation pay and backwages be
awarded to the participants of an illegal strike?

No backwages will be awarded to union members

as a penalty for their participation in the illegal
strike. As for the union officers, for knowingly
participating in an illegal strike, the law mandates
that a union officer may be terminated from
employment and they are not entitled to any
relief.
(Gold City Integrated Port Services, Inc. v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 86000, Sep. 21, 1990 )
What is the rule on reinstatement of
striking workers?
 Striking employees are entitled to reinstatement,
regardless of whether or not the strike was the
consequence of the employers ULP because while
out on strike, the strikers are not considered to have
abandoned their employment, but rather have
only ceased from their labor; the declaration of a
strike is not a renunciation of employment relation.
Q: Are strikers entitled to their
backwages or strike duration pay?
 General Rule: No, even if such strike was legal.
 Exception:
 Where the strikers voluntarily and unconditionally offered to return to
work, but the employer refused to accept the offer – workers are
entitled to back wages from the date their offer was made
 When there is a return‐to‐work order and the Ees are discriminated
against other Ees, workers are entitled to back wages from the date
of discrimination
 In case of a ULP strike, in the discretion of the authority deciding the
case
Q: What is the rule in strikes in hospitals?
 It shall be the duty of the striking employees or
locking‐out employer to provide and maintain an
effective skeletal workforce of medical and health
personnel for the duration of the strike or lockout.
 SLE may immediately assume jurisdiction within 24
hours from knowledge of the occurrence of such
strike or lockout certify it to the NLRC for
compulsory arbitration.
Preventive Mediation Case
 It involves labor disputes which are the subject of a
formal or informal request for conciliation and mediation
assistance sought by either or both parties or upon the
initiative of the NCMB. (Sec. 1 [mm], Rule I, Book V, IRR)
 Note: The regional branch may treat the notice as
preventive mediation case upon agreement of the
parties.
Assumption of Jurisdiction by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment (SLE) on Strikes

1. Discretionary
a. If in his opinion there exists a labor dispute causing or likely
to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to
the national interest.
b. He may certify the same to the NLRC for compulsory
arbitration.
Assumption of Jurisdiction by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment (SLE) on Strikes

c. Effect – Automatically enjoins the intended or impending strike/lockout

but if one has already taken place, all striking or locked out Ees shall
immediately return to work and the Er shall immediately resume
operations and re‐admit all workers under the same terms and conditions
prevailing before the strike or lockout
(Trans‐ Asia Shipping Lines, Inc.‐Unlicensed Crews Ee’s Union v. CA, G.R.
No. 145428, July 7, 2004)
Note: A motion for reconsideration does not suspend the effects as the
assumption order is immediately executory
Assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment (SLE) on strikes
2. Mandatory (within 24 hours)
a. In labor disputes adversely affecting the continued operation of
hospitals, clinics or medical institutions
b. May assume jurisdiction or certify it to the NLRC for compulsory
arbitration
c. Duty of striking union or locking out Er to provide and maintain an
effective skeletal workforce of medical and other health personnel,
where movement and service shall be unhampered and unrestricted as
are necessary to insure the proper and adequate protection of the life
and health of its patients most especially emergency cases for the
duration of the strike or lockout (Art. 263 [g])
Issues that the SLE may resolve when he assumes
jurisdiction over a labor dispute
1. Issues submitted to the SLE for resolution and such issues involved in
the labor dispute itself. (St. Scholastica’s College v. Torres, G.R. No.
100158, June 2, 1992)
2. SLE may subsume pending labor cases before LAs which are involved
in the dispute and decide even issues falling under the exclusive and
original jurisdiction of LAs such as the declaration of legality or illegality
of strike
(Int’l. Pharmaceuticals v. SLE, G.R. Nos. 92981‐ 83, Jan. 9, 1992)

Note: Power of SLE is plenary and discretionary. (St. Luke’s Medical

Center v. Torres, G.R. No. 99395, June 29, 1993)
Q: Is it necessary for the SLE to issue a return‐to‐
work order in an assumption order?

A: No, the mere issuance of an assumption order

automatically carries with it a return‐to‐work order
although not expressly stated therein.

(TSEU‐FFW v. CA, G.R. Nos. 143013‐14, Dec.18, 2000)

Q: What is the extent of the powers of the
President during strikes/lockouts?
1. May determine the industries, which are in his opinion
indispensable to national interest
2. May intervene at any time and assume jurisdiction over any
such labor dispute in order to settle or terminate the same.
(Art. 263[g])

Note: The decision of the President/SLE is final and executory after

receipt thereof by the parties.
Q: May a return to work order be validly issued
pending determination of the legality of the strike?
Yes. Where the return to work order is issued pending the
determination of the legality of the strike, it is not correct to say
that it may be enforced only if the strike is legal and may be
disregarded if illegal. Precisely, the purpose of the return to work
order is to maintain the status quo while the determination is
being made.

(Sarmiento v. Tuico, G.R. Nos. 75271‐73, June 27, 1988)

Q: What is the nature of the power of
SLE under Art. 263(g)?
 The assumption of jurisdiction is in the nature of a police
power measure. This is done for the promotion of the
common good considering that a prolonged strike or
lockout can be inimical to the national economy. The
SLE acts to maintain industrial peace. Thus, his
certification for compulsory arbitration is not intended to
impede the worker’s right to strike but to obtain a
speedy settlement of the dispute.

(Philtread Workers Union v. Confesor, G.R. No. 117169, Mar.

12, 1997)
Q: What is the nature of the power of
SLE under Art. 263(g)?
 Art. 263(g) does not interfere with the workers
right to strike but merely regulates it, when in the
exercise of such right national interest will be
affected. The LC vests upon the SLE the
discretion to determine what industries are
indispensable to national interest.
Q: What is the nature of assumption and
certification orders of the Secretary of Labor?

 The underlying principle embodied in Art. 264 (g)

on the settlement of labor disputes is that
assumption and certification orders are executor
in character and are strictly complied with by the
parties even during the pendency of any petition
questioning their validity. This extraordinary
authority given to the Secretary of Labor is aimed
at arriving at a peaceful and speedy solution to
labor disputes, without jeopardizing national
interests.
Q: Does the RTC have jurisdiction to decide
on the case filed by the PSBA students?
 No, the RTC was without jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the case filed by some PSBA students, involving
as it does a labor dispute over which the labor agencies
had exclusive jurisdiction. That the regular courts have
no jurisdiction over labor disputes and to issue injunctions
against strikes is well‐settled.

(PSBA v. Noriel, G.R. No. 80648, Aug. 15, 1988)

Q: What is the effect of defiance to
the return to work order?
 A: It shall be considered an illegal act committed in the
course of the strike or lockout and shall authorize the SLE
or the NLRC, as the case may be, to enforce the same
under pain or loss of employment status or entitlement to
full employment benefits from the locking‐out Er or
backwages, damages and/or other positive and/or
affirmative reliefs, even to criminal prosecution against
the liable parties.
(Sec. 6, Rule IX, of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC;
St. Scholastica’s College v. Torres, G.R. No. 100158, June 2,
1992)
THANK YOU!