In Automotive Engine Rebuilders, Inc. v. Progresibong Unyon Ng Mga Manggagawa sa AER, the Supreme Court addressed the complex interplay between employer prerogatives and employee rights during labor disputes. The Court ordered the reinstatement of employees, even those who tested positive for illegal drugs, albeit without backwages, because both the company and the union were found to be at fault. This ruling underscores that while employers have the right to enforce company rules, they must do so fairly and without violating labor laws, especially during union activities. The decision emphasizes the principle of in pari delicto, where both parties are equally at fault, warranting a restoration of the status quo ante.

Drug Tests, Unionization, and Reinstatement: Finding Fairness in Labor Disputes

The case arose from a strained relationship between Automotive Engine Rebuilders, Inc. (AER) and its employees’ union, Progresibong Unyon Ng Mga Manggagawa sa AER (Unyon). Following Unyon’s filing of a petition for certification election, AER conducted a drug test on all employees, leading to the suspension of several who tested positive. This action ignited further conflict, with Unyon accusing AER of unfair labor practices and illegal suspension, while AER accused Unyon of illegal strike activities. The central legal question was whether AER’s actions, particularly the drug testing and subsequent suspension and dismissal of employees, were justified and lawful, or whether they constituted unfair labor practices.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially ruled in favor of Unyon, directing AER to reinstate the concerned employees without backwages, finding the suspensions to be without valid cause or due process. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified this decision, setting aside the reinstatement order, but the Court of Appeals (CA) ultimately amended the NLRC’s ruling, ordering the immediate reinstatement of all suspended employees without backwages. The CA reasoned that both parties were guilty of unfair labor practices and should bear the consequences of their actions. Dissatisfied, both parties appealed to the Supreme Court.

Building on these divergent rulings, the Supreme Court’s analysis focused on several key issues. First, the Court addressed the number of complaining employees, affirming the CA’s finding that there were 26, not just the three recognized by the NLRC, after accounting for those who resigned and signed quitclaims. Secondly, the Court examined the legality of the drug testing and subsequent suspensions. It highlighted AER’s failure to demonstrate that the drug test was conducted by an authorized center or that proper procedures were followed. The Court cited Nacague v. Sulpicio Lines, which emphasized the necessity of using accredited drug testing centers and conducting both screening and confirmatory tests to ensure the reliability of results.

Section 36 of R.A. No. 9165 provides that drug tests shall be performed only by authorized drug testing centers… The drug testing shall employ, among others, two (2) testing methods, the screening test which will determine the positive result as well as the type of drug used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a positive screening test.

This underscored that the drug testing was suspect, especially given its timing immediately after the union’s formation. AER’s actions were seen as retaliatory rather than a legitimate exercise of management prerogative. Furthermore, the Court considered AER’s alleged engagement in a runaway shop when it began transferring machinery, further exacerbating the labor dispute.

In contrast to AER’s actions, the Court also found fault with the union’s conduct. The union’s concerted work slowdown and the attempt to forcibly retrieve machinery from the AER-PSC premises were deemed unjustified. The Court recognized that these actions caused disruption and tension, potentially affecting AER’s business and clients. Due to the infractions committed by both AER and the union, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of in pari delicto. This principle, rooted in equity, dictates that when both parties are equally at fault, neither should be entitled to affirmative relief.

The application of the in pari delicto doctrine is not new in labor disputes. The Court cited Philippines Inter-Fashion, Inc. v NLRC, where both the employer and the union were found to have engaged in illegal activities, leading to the restoration of the status quo ante. The Court held that because both AER and the union were at fault, they should be returned to their respective positions before the illegal strike and lockout. However, recognizing that reinstatement might not be feasible, the Court allowed for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.

The case hinged on the principle of fairness and equity, particularly when both parties contribute to the escalation of a labor dispute. The Supreme Court balanced the need to uphold employer’s rights with the constitutional mandate to protect labor. The decision reinforces the principle that employers cannot use company rules to suppress union activities or retaliate against employees exercising their right to organize. At the same time, employees must engage in lawful means to voice their grievances.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the reinstatement of employees, including those who tested positive for drugs, without awarding backwages, considering the actions of both the employer and the employees.
What does in pari delicto mean?	In pari delicto means “in equal fault.” It’s a legal principle stating that when two parties are equally at fault in a dispute, neither party can seek remedy from the courts.
Why were the employees reinstated even though some tested positive for drugs?	The employees were reinstated because the employer also engaged in unfair labor practices, like conducting a questionable drug test immediately after the union was formed. The Court applied the in pari delicto doctrine since both parties were at fault.
What is a runaway shop?	A runaway shop refers to the relocation of a business to another location, often to avoid dealing with a union or to take advantage of lower labor costs. It is generally considered an unfair labor practice.
What is the significance of the drug testing procedure in this case?	The drug testing procedure was significant because it was questionable if the center was accredited, the tests were conducted immediately after union formation, and proper confirmatory tests were not performed, casting doubt on its validity.
What alternative was offered if reinstatement was not feasible?	If reinstatement was not feasible, the concerned employees were to be given separation pay up to the date set for the return of the complaining employees in lieu of reinstatement.
How many employees were involved in the complaint?	Initially, 32 employees filed the complaint, but after six resigned and signed quitclaims, the number was reduced to 26 complaining employees.
What was the main reason backwages were not awarded?	Backwages were not awarded because both the employer and the employees were at fault, and the Court applied the principle of in pari delicto, restoring the status quo ante but without additional compensation.

This case serves as a reminder that labor disputes require a balanced approach, considering the rights and responsibilities of both employers and employees. The principle of in pari delicto offers a framework for resolving conflicts when both parties have acted improperly, aiming to restore fairness and equity in the workplace.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Automotive Engine Rebuilders, Inc. v. Progresibong Unyon Ng Mga Manggagawa sa AER, G.R. Nos. 160138 & 160192, July 13, 2011