044 Steel Corporation v.

SCP Employees Union-NAFLU AUTHOR:

(SCPEU-NAFLU)
Topic: Strikes, Lockout and Concerted Actions
FACTS: (chronological order)
1. SCP-Federated Union of Energy Leaders-General and Allied Services (SCP-FUEL-GAS) filed for PCE seeking to
represent the employees of the petitioners.
2. The respondent union intervened and sought to be one of those to be voted for.
3. Med-Arb denied intervention for having been filed out of time.
4. Consent Election was conducted. (Choices were SCP-FUEL-GAS and No Union)
5. Election turned out to be a failure because majority did not vote.
6. SCP-FUELGAS filed an election protest claiming that the CE was replete with irregularities.
7. Separately, NAFLU (mother Federation of the respondent) filed a PCE seeking to represent the rank and file
employees of the petitioner.
8. Med-Arb: election protest of SCP-FUELGAS is denied, and PCE of NAFLU granted.
9. Petitioner and SCP-FUELGAS appealed to the Sec. of Labor.
10. DOLE USEC: ordered the conducting of the CE with SCP-FUELGAS, SCPEU-NAFLU, and No Union as choices.
11. Unsatisfied, Petitioner and SCP-FUELGAS appealed to the CA.
12. Going back, the CE ordered by the Med-Arb (for NAFLU) was conducted (in #7). SCP-FUELGAS participated but
without prejudice to the decision of the CA thats pending appeal.
13. Respondent won the CE.
14. SCP-FUELGAS filed another election protest.
15. CA now renders decision on the appeal of SCP-FUELGAS. (see #11 for reference)
16. CA: CE must be conducted and the choices exclude SCPEU-NAFLU.
17. The protest of SCP-FUELGAS (in #14) is denied by the Med-Arb.
17.1 However, the Med-Arb deferred the declaration of the Respondent as the winner (in fairness to SCPFUELGAS)
18. The respondent, not satisfied with this, filed an appeal with the DOLE.
19. Aside from this, the respondent filed a manifestation with the CA that since they already won the CE, their win
should be considered as a supervening event that would bar another CE.
20. CA denied this.
21. DOLE (in deciding the appeal by respondent in #18): Respondent is declared as the exclusive bargaining agent of
the employees of the petitioner.
22. Petitioner and SC-FUELGAS filed MR with the DOLE.
23. Respondent having won, they now sent proposals of CBA to the petitioner.
24. Petitioner held in abeyance any action of the CBA proposal in view of the pending MR.
25. Respondent, dissatisfied with the abeyance of the petitioner filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB on the ground
of ULP (ie Refusal to bargain).
26. This dispute was certified to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration.
27. NLRC: petitioner has no obligation to recognize the respondent as the Certified Bargaining Agent, thus no ULP in
refusing to bargain the CBA.
28. Respondent filed an MR and another Notice of Strike (2 nd Notice of Strike) alleging refusal to bargain and union
busting.
29. Notice to strike dismissed and respondent was enjoined from holding a strike.
30. Again! Respondent filed another Notice of Strike (3rd Notice of Strike). And now, they really went on strike.
31. The Labor Secretary certified the dispute to the NLRC and issued a Return-to-Work Order.
32. NLRC: ordered the petitioner to bargain collectively with the respondent as the duly certified bargaining agent.
33. MR of petitioner denied.
34. In the first labor dispute certified to the NLRC (in #26), the NLRC resolved the MR (in #27) holding in favor of the
respondent.
35. The petitioner filed an appeal by certiorari to the CA (this was consolidated with other pending appeals with the

CA).
36. CA: in favor of the respondent. CA held that the claims of the petitioner are based on pure allegations and not
supported by substantial evidence.
37. Hence this petition.
ISSUE(S): (one of the issues was)
Whether or not the CA erred when it failed to declare the strike held by the respondent as illegal?
HELD: Yes.
RATIO:
Returning to work in this situation is not a matter of option or voluntariness but of obligation. The worker must return to his
job together with his co-workers so that the operations of the company can be resumed and it can continue serving the
public and promoting its interest. 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. Regardless of their motives, or the
validity of their claims, the striking workers must cease and/or desist from any and all acts that undermine or tend to
undermine this authority of the Secretary of Labor, once an assumption and/or certification order is issued. They cannot,
for instance, ignore return-to-work orders, citing unfair labor practices on the part of the company, to justify their action.
The strike is a legitimate weapon in the human struggle for a decent existence. It is considered as the most effective
weapon in protecting the rights of the employees to improve the terms and conditions of their employment. But to be valid,
a strike must be pursued within legal bounds. The right to strike as a means for the attainment of social justice is never
meant to oppress or destroy the employer. The law provides limits for its exercise.
Even if this Court were to uphold the validity of respondents purpose or objective in staging a strike, still, the strike would
be declared illegal for having been conducted in utter defiance of the Secretarys return-to-work order and after the dispute
had been certified for compulsory arbitration. Although ostensibly there were several notices of strike successively filed by
respondent, these notices were founded on substantially the same groundspetitioners continued refusal to recognize it
as the collective bargaining representative.