Scribd
Upload
49 views3 pages

141-142 Genon

The document discusses two cases related to labor disputes and unions. The first case discusses whether a match factory can be considered indispensable to the national interest. The second case discusses whether employees are entitled to back wages during an illegal strike. In both cases, the court ruled that the Secretary of Labor appropriately assumed jurisdiction in the first case, and that employees are not entitled to back wages during an illegal strike.

Uploaded by

VEDIA GENON
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
49 views3 pages

141-142 Genon

The document discusses two cases related to labor disputes and unions. The first case discusses whether a match factory can be considered indispensable to the national interest. The second case discusses whether employees are entitled to back wages during an illegal strike. In both cases, the court ruled that the Secretary of Labor appropriately assumed jurisdiction in the first case, and that employees are not entitled to back wages during an illegal strike.

Uploaded by

VEDIA GENON
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

141 GENON

PHIMCO vs. PILA

MAINPOINT: A match factory, though of value, can scarcely be considered as an


industry “indispensable to the national interest” as it cannot be in the same category as
“generation or distribution of energy, or those undertaken by banks, hospitals, and
export-oriented industries

FACTS: Private respondent, Phimco Industries Labor Association (PILA), duly certified
collective bargaining representative of the daily paid workers of the petitioner PHIMCO
filed a notice of strike with the NCMB against PHIMCO, a corporation engaged in the
production of matches, after a deadlock in the collective bargaining and negotiation.
Parties failed to resolve their differences PILA (during the conciliation conferences),
composed of 352 members, staged a strike. PHIMCO sent notice of termination to
some 47 workers including several union officers. Secretary Brillantes assumed
jurisdiction over the labor dispute; issued a return-to-work order. Hence, petitioner files
this petition.

ISSUE: WON the public respondent acted with GADALEJ assuming jurisdiction over
subject labor dispute.

RULING: YES. Art. 263 of the Labor Code vests in the Secretary of Labor the
discretion to determine what industries are indispensable to the national interest.
Accordingly, upon the determination by the Secretary of Labor that such industry is
indispensable to the national interest, he will assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute
in the said industry. 8 This power, however, is not without any limitation. It stressed in
the case of Free telephone Workers Union vs. Honorable Minister of Labor and
Employment, et al., 10 the limitation set by the legislature on the power of the Secretary
of Labor to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute, thus: xxx cannot be any clearer, the
coverage being limited to “strikes or lockouts adversely affecting the national interest.

In this case at bar, however, the very admission by the public respondent draws the
labor dispute in question out of the ambit of the Secretary’s prerogative, to wit. While the
case at bar appears on its face not to fall within the strict categorization of cases imbued
with “national interest”, this office believes that the obtaining circumstances warrant the
exercise of the powers under Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code, as amended.

The private respondent did not even make any effort to touch on the indispensability of
the match factory to the national interest. It must have been aware that a match factory,
though of value, can scarcely be considered as an industry “indispensable to the
national interest” as it cannot be in the same category as “generation and distribution of
energy, or those undertaken by banks, hospitals, and export-oriented industries.” Yet,
the public respondent assumed jurisdiction thereover.
142 GENON
Escario vs NLRC

FACTS: The petitioners were among the regular employees of respondent


Pinakamasarap Corporation (PINA), a corporation engaged in manufacturing and
selling food seasoning. They were members of petitioner Malayang Samahan ng mga
Manggagawa sa Balanced Foods (Union). All the officers and some 200 members of
the Union walked out of PINA’s premises and proceeded to the barangay office to show
support for an employee and officer of the union who was charged with oral
defamation by a manager of the company. All officers and members of the union
went back to work afterwards. As a result of the walkout, PINA preventively suspended
all officers of the Union. PINA terminated the officers of the Union after a month.

PINA filed a complaint for ULP and damages. LA ruled that the incident was an illegal
walkout constituting ULP; and that all the Union’s officers, except Cañete, had thereby
lost their employment. Union filed a notice of strike, claiming that PINA was guilty of
union busting through the constructive dismissal of its officers. Union held a strike vote,
at which a majority of 190 members of the Union voted to strike. PINA retaliated by
charging the petitioners with ULP and abandonment of work, stating that they had
violated provisions on strike of the CBA. NLRC issued a temporary restraining order
(TRO). NLRC granted the writ of preliminary injunction.The LA rendered decision
declaring the strike as illegal.NLRC sustained, but held that there was no abandonment
on the part of the employees.

CA sustained the NLRC and explained that they were not entitled to full back wages as
only instance under Article 264 when a dismissed employee would be reinstated with
full backwages was when he was dismissed by reason of an illegal lockout; that Article
264 was silent on the award of backwages to employees participating in a lawful strike;
and that a reinstatement with full backwages would be granted only when the dismissal
of the petitioners was not done in accordance with Article 282 (dismissals with just
causes) and Article 283 (dismissals with authorized causes) of the Labor Code.

ISSUE: WON they are entitled to back wages during the illegal strike

RULING: YES. Back-wages are not granted to employees participating in an illegal


strike simply accords with the reality that they do not render work for the employer
during the period of the illegal strike. With respect to backwages, the principle of a “fair
day’s wage for a fair day’s labor” remains as the basic factor in determining the award
thereof. If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay
unless, of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally
locked out, suspended or dismissed or otherwise illegally prevented from working.
Under the principle of a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor, the petitioners were
not entitled to the wages during the period of the strike (even if the strike might
be legal), because they performed no work during the strike. Verily, it was neither
fair nor just that the dismissed employees should litigate against their employer
on the latter’s time.

You might also like