Illegal Strike? Know When Employee Actions Lead to Lawful Dismissal

TLDR; This landmark Supreme Court case clarifies that employees, especially union leaders, can be legally dismissed for participating in illegal strike activities such as obstructing company access and harassing non-striking employees. Employers must still adhere to due process, but proven illegal acts during strikes provide just cause for termination.

GREAT PACIFIC LIFE EMPLOYEES UNION AND RODEL P. DE LA ROSA, PETITIONERS, VS. GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LABOR ARBITER JOVENCIO LL. MAYOR JR. AND NATIONAL  LABOR   RELATIONS  COMMISSION (THIRD  DIVISION), RESPONDENTS. G.R. No. 126717, February 11, 1999

INTRODUCTION

Imagine a scenario where striking employees, in their fervor to protest, block company entrances, preventing other employees from working and even subjecting individuals to searches. Where is the line between protected strike activity and illegal actions that justify dismissal? This case, Great Pacific Life Employees Union v. Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation, decided by the Philippine Supreme Court, delves into this critical question, providing crucial guidance for both employers and employees on the permissible bounds of strike conduct. The central legal issue revolves around whether the dismissal of union officers for alleged illegal acts during a strike was lawful, and what constitutes sufficient evidence to justify such termination.

LEGAL CONTEXT: STRIKES, ILLEGAL ACTS, AND DUE PROCESS UNDER PHILIPPINE LABOR LAW

The right to strike is a constitutionally protected right of workers in the Philippines, essential for fair labor practices and collective bargaining. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to legal limitations outlined in the Labor Code of the Philippines. Article 264 of the Labor Code addresses strikes and picketing, specifically prohibiting certain activities during strikes. Paragraph (e) of Article 264 is particularly relevant, stating:

“No person engaged in picketing shall commit any act of violence, coercion or intimidation or obstruct the free ingress to or egress from the employer’s premises for lawful purposes, or obstruct public thoroughfares.“

Furthermore, paragraph (a) of the same article provides a severe consequence for illegal strike activities:

“Any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status.“

This legal framework balances the workers’ right to strike with the employer’s right to operate their business and the public’s interest in maintaining peace and order. It’s important to note that even when just cause for dismissal exists, employers must still adhere to procedural due process. This means providing the employee with notice and an opportunity to be heard before termination, as established in numerous Supreme Court decisions emphasizing fairness and due process in employment termination.

CASE BREAKDOWN: THE GREAT PACIFIC LIFE STRIKE

The dispute began when Great Pacific Life Employees Union and Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation (GREPALIFE) reached a deadlock in Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiations in 1993. This impasse led the Union to file a notice of strike, and subsequently, to stage a strike in November 1993. During the strike, GREPALIFE alleged that striking employees engaged in illegal activities, specifically obstructing access to company premises and harassing individuals entering the building.

• Company Directive and Dismissals: GREPALIFE directed striking employees to explain their actions, warning of possible disciplinary actions, including dismissal. Union President Domingo and some strikers submitted explanations, while Vice President De la Rosa and others did not. GREPALIFE deemed Domingo’s explanation unsatisfactory and considered De la Rosa to have waived his right to be heard. Both were dismissed, along with other strikers whose explanations were rejected or who did not respond.
• Negotiations and MOA: Despite dismissals, negotiations continued, leading to a draft agreement where GREPALIFE offered reinstatement of most strikers on the condition that Domingo and De la Rosa resign. However, the final Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by both parties omitted the resignation condition. Instead, it included a clause reserving Domingo and De la Rosa’s right to question their dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
• Labor Arbiter and NLRC Decisions: Domingo and De la Rosa filed an illegal dismissal case. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in their favor, finding insufficient evidence of illegal acts and highlighting the company’s “offer” of resignation as suspicious. However, the NLRC reversed this, finding just cause for dismissal due to illegal strike activities but acknowledging a lack of strict due process. The NLRC ordered GREPALIFE to pay one month’s salary for the due process lapse and separation pay as per the company’s offer. Domingo eventually entered into a compromise agreement with GREPALIFE, leaving De la Rosa to pursue the case to the Supreme Court.
• Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court sided with the NLRC, upholding De la Rosa’s dismissal as legal. The Court emphasized that the right to strike is not absolute and illegal acts during strikes are not protected. The Court cited affidavits from security guards detailing the strikers’ actions – blocking entrances, searching vehicles and bags, and preventing employees from entering. The Court noted De la Rosa did not refute these affidavits.

The Supreme Court stated, “Since de la Rosa did not present countervailing evidence, the NLRC correctly appreciated the affidavits of the two (2) security guards as having adequately established the charges leveled against de la Rosa thus justifying his dismissal from employment.” Furthermore, the Court rejected De la Rosa’s claim of forced resignation, pointing out that the MOA did not include the resignation condition, and his resignation letter was never acted upon by the company. Finally, the Court dismissed the unfair labor practice claim, stating that differentiating between union leaders and members in reinstatement decisions, based on their greater responsibility to uphold legal strike conduct, does not automatically constitute unfair labor practice.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: STRIKE RESPONSIBLY, EMPLOYERS ACT FAIRLY

This case serves as a stark reminder to unions and employees that while the right to strike is fundamental, it must be exercised within legal boundaries. Engaging in illegal acts during a strike, particularly violence, intimidation, or obstruction of company operations, can have severe consequences, including dismissal. Union officers, who are expected to lead by example and ensure lawful conduct during strikes, are held to a higher standard.

For employers, this case reinforces their right to discipline and even dismiss employees who participate in illegal strike activities. However, it also underscores the importance of following due process. While the NLRC found just cause for dismissal, they still required GREPALIFE to pay one month’s salary for procedural lapses. Employers must ensure they provide proper notice and opportunity for employees to explain their side before termination.

Key Lessons:

• Know the Limits of Strike Actions: Strikes must be peaceful and lawful. Obstructing access, violence, and intimidation are illegal and can lead to dismissal.
• Union Leaders Held to Higher Standard: Union officers have a greater responsibility to ensure strikes remain lawful. Their participation in illegal acts is viewed more seriously.
• Importance of Evidence: Employers must gather credible evidence of illegal strike activities, such as affidavits and witness testimonies, to justify dismissal.
• Due Process Still Required: Even with just cause, employers must adhere to procedural due process – notice and hearing – before terminating employees.
• Negotiated Settlements: Settlements and MOAs reached during labor disputes must be carefully reviewed to ensure they accurately reflect the agreed terms and conditions, as discrepancies can lead to further legal battles.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: What are considered illegal acts during a strike in the Philippines?

A: Illegal acts during a strike include violence, coercion, intimidation, obstruction of free passage to or from the employer’s premises, and obstruction of public thoroughfares. Searching vehicles or individuals without consent can also be considered illegal.

Q: Can union officers be dismissed more easily than union members for strike misconduct?

A: While the law applies equally to all workers, courts recognize that union officers have a greater responsibility to ensure lawful strike conduct. Their leadership role may be considered an aggravating factor when assessing culpability for illegal acts.

Q: What kind of evidence is needed to prove illegal strike activities?

A: Evidence can include affidavits from witnesses (like security guards in this case), photographs, videos, and police reports documenting the illegal acts. The evidence must be credible and directly link the employee to the prohibited activities.

Q: What is procedural due process in employee dismissal cases?

A: Procedural due process requires the employer to give the employee written notice of the charges against them and an opportunity to be heard, to present their defense, before termination. This ensures fairness and prevents arbitrary dismissals.

Q: If an employee is illegally dismissed, what are their remedies?

A: An illegally dismissed employee can file a case for illegal dismissal with the NLRC, seeking reinstatement, back wages, damages, and other remedies.

Q: Does accepting separation pay mean an employee waives their right to sue for illegal dismissal?

A: Not necessarily. It depends on the circumstances and the wording of any agreement signed. If the separation pay is clearly stated as a full and final settlement and the employee voluntarily agrees, it may constitute a waiver. However, if the circumstances suggest coercion or lack of clear understanding, a waiver may not be valid.

Q: Can an employer refuse to reinstate only union officers after a strike settlement?

A: Potentially, yes, if there is a valid and non-discriminatory reason, such as proven participation in illegal strike activities, especially for union officers who are expected to uphold lawful conduct. However, such decisions must be made in good faith and not as a form of unfair labor practice to suppress union activities.

Q: What is unfair labor practice?

A: Unfair labor practice refers to acts by employers or unions that violate workers’ rights to self-organization and collective bargaining, as defined in Article 248 (for employers) and 249 (for unions) of the Labor Code. Examples include interfering with union formation, discriminating against union members, and refusing to bargain collectively.

Q: How can employers prevent illegal acts during strikes?

A: Employers should maintain open communication with unions, clearly communicate company policies on strike conduct, ensure adequate security to prevent illegal activities, and document any incidents that occur. Seeking legal counsel early in a strike situation is also advisable.

Q: How can unions ensure their strikes remain legal?

A: Unions should educate their members on the legal limits of strike actions, emphasize peaceful and lawful picketing, train strike leaders on managing picket lines responsibly, and maintain open communication with management to resolve disputes and prevent escalation into illegal activities.

ASG Law specializes in Labor Law and Litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.