INTRODUCTION

Imagine losing your job simply for joining a strike, even if procedural rules were inadvertently missed. This was the precarious situation faced by several Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI) employees. At the heart of this Supreme Court case lies a critical question: When a strike is declared illegal due to a technicality, can all participating employees be dismissed? This case delves into the nuances of Philippine labor law, specifically the distinction between union officers and rank-and-file members in illegal strikes, and the extent of protection afforded to ordinary workers.

In 1987, the CCBPI Postmix Workers Union went on strike due to a collective bargaining deadlock. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (CCBPI) swiftly declared the strike illegal, citing a violation of the mandatory seven-day strike ban. While the strike’s illegality was eventually upheld, the more contentious issue became the dismissal of several union members. The Supreme Court had to determine whether these employees were union officers, who could be terminated for participating in an illegal strike, or ordinary members, who are protected from dismissal for mere participation.

LEGAL CONTEXT: STRIKES, LEGALITY, AND EMPLOYEE RIGHTS UNDER THE LABOR CODE

Philippine labor law, specifically the Labor Code, recognizes the right to strike as a legitimate tool for workers to pursue their demands. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to certain procedural requirements designed to ensure orderly labor relations and minimize disruptions. Articles 264 and 265 of the Labor Code outline these crucial prerequisites for a valid strike.

According to Article 264, for strikes arising from bargaining deadlocks, unions must:

• File a notice of strike with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at least 30 days before the intended strike date (15 days for unfair labor practices).
• Obtain approval to strike from at least two-thirds of the total union membership through secret ballot.
• Furnish the DOLE with the results of the strike vote at least seven days before the intended strike. This seven-day period is known as the “strike ban.”

Article 265 further clarifies that it is unlawful to declare a strike without fulfilling these requirements. The “cooling-off period” (30 or 15 days from notice filing) and the “strike ban” (7 days after strike vote submission) are mandatory waiting periods intended to allow for conciliation and mediation efforts by the DOLE to avert strikes.

Crucially, Article 264(a) of the Labor Code distinguishes between the consequences for union officers and ordinary members participating in illegal strikes:

“Any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike and 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: Provided, That mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination of his employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during such lawful strike.”

This provision highlights a critical protection for ordinary workers: mere participation in an illegal strike is not grounds for dismissal. Termination is only justified for union officers who knowingly participate in an illegal strike or for any worker (officer or member) who commits illegal acts during any strike, legal or illegal. This distinction aims to balance the employer’s right to maintain operations with the worker’s right to engage in concerted action.

CASE BREAKDOWN: THE COCA-COLA STRIKE AND THE FATE OF THE EMPLOYEES

The CCBPI Postmix Workers Union, seeking to renew their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), found themselves in a deadlock with management in 1987. Negotiations stalled, leading the union to file a Notice of Strike with the DOLE in March 1987.

Despite conciliation efforts, no agreement was reached. The union conducted a strike vote on April 14, 1987, and subsequently commenced strike actions on April 20, 1987. Immediately, CCBPI management filed a Petition to Declare the Strike Illegal, arguing that the union failed to observe the mandatory seven-day strike ban. They pointed out that the strike began only six days after the strike vote submission, not seven.

The legal battle ensued, traversing different levels of labor tribunals:

1. Labor Arbiter (First Decision): Initially, the Labor Arbiter sided with the union, dismissing the company’s petition. The Arbiter reasoned that substantial compliance with the seven-day ban was sufficient, considering the strike started only one day short of the requirement.
2. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) (First Resolution): On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, declaring the strike illegal. The NLRC strictly interpreted the seven-day strike ban as mandatory, ruling that even striking on the seventh day itself would be illegal. Consequently, union officers were deemed to have lost their employment status, leading to the termination of eight employees identified as officers.
3. NLRC (Second Decision – on Illegal Dismissal Complaint): The union filed a complaint questioning the termination of five employees (Gumarang, Piedad, Basco, Jumalon, and Dayao), arguing they were not officers. Initially, the Labor Arbiter dismissed this complaint, siding with the company. However, on appeal and reconsideration, the NLRC reversed course and ordered the reinstatement of these five employees, concluding they were not union officers during the strike.
4. Supreme Court Review (G.R. No. 114521 and G.R. No. 123491): Both the union (questioning the strike illegality ruling) and the company (questioning the reinstatement order) elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court consolidated the petitions.

The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC’s finding that the April 20, 1987 strike was indeed illegal due to non-compliance with the seven-day strike ban. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of this requirement, citing previous jurisprudence:

“The foregoing provisions hardly leave any room for doubt that the cooling-off period in Art. 264(c) and the 7-day strike ban after the strike-vote report prescribed in Art. 264(f) were meant to be, and should be deemed, mandatory.”

Regarding the terminated employees, the Supreme Court sided with the NLRC’s final decision, finding that the five employees were not union officers during the strike. The Court relied heavily on the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) certification, which did not list them as officers during the relevant period. The Court also dismissed the company’s argument that signing the CBA and related documents as witnesses or directors implied officer status during the strike. The Supreme Court stated:

“It must be emphasized that the penalty of dismissal could be imposed only on union officers serving and acting as such, during the illegal strike held on April 20, 1987. As a necessary implication, if employees acted as union officers after said strike, they may not be held liable and therefore, could not be terminated.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the reinstatement of Edmar L. Basco (as four others had already settled with the company), reinforcing the protection afforded to ordinary union members even in illegal strikes.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LESSONS FOR UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS

This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements in strike actions. For unions, meticulous compliance with the Labor Code’s strike prerequisites – notice, cooling-off periods, strike vote, and strike ban – is crucial to ensure the legality of their actions and protect their members from adverse consequences.

Employers, on the other hand, must understand the nuanced application of penalties in illegal strikes. While union officers who instigate or knowingly participate in illegal strikes can be terminated, ordinary members are protected. Employers must present clear and convincing evidence that rank-and-file employees committed illegal acts during the strike to justify dismissal. Mere participation in an illegal strike is insufficient grounds for termination for ordinary members.

Key Lessons

• Mandatory Strike Requirements: The seven-day strike ban and other procedural steps are mandatory. Substantial compliance is not enough; strict adherence is required to ensure strike legality.
• Officer vs. Member Distinction: Philippine labor law distinguishes between union officers and ordinary members in illegal strikes. Penalties for illegal strikes are more severe for officers.
• Protection for Rank-and-File: Ordinary union members are protected from dismissal for merely participating in an illegal strike. Termination requires proof of illegal acts committed during the strike.
• Importance of Evidence: Employers must present solid evidence to justify the termination of employees, especially rank-and-file members, in the context of illegal strikes. Speculation or assumptions are insufficient.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: What makes a strike illegal in the Philippines?

A: A strike can be declared illegal for various reasons, including failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements like the cooling-off period, the seven-day strike ban, or if it violates a no-strike clause in a CBA, or if it is conducted for unlawful purposes.

Q: Can I be fired for participating in an illegal strike in the Philippines?

A: It depends on whether you are a union officer or an ordinary member. Union officers who knowingly participate in an illegal strike can be terminated. However, ordinary members are protected from dismissal for mere participation unless they commit illegal acts during the strike.

Q: What is considered an “illegal act” during a strike that could lead to termination?

A: Illegal acts during a strike can include violence, coercion,破坏 property, preventing non-striking employees from working, or blocking ingress and egress to company premises. The act must be serious and demonstrably illegal, not just a minor infraction.

Q: What is the 7-day strike ban in the Philippines?

A: The 7-day strike ban is a mandatory waiting period after the union submits the strike vote results to the DOLE. The union must wait at least seven full days after submission before commencing a strike.

Q: What is the cooling-off period before a strike?

A: The cooling-off period is 30 days for bargaining deadlocks and 15 days for unfair labor practices, counted from the filing of the strike notice with the DOLE. This period is intended for conciliation and mediation efforts.

Q: How is the 7-day strike ban period calculated?

A: According to the Civil Code, the first day (day of strike vote submission) is excluded, and the last day (seventh day) is included. The strike can commence on the day after the seventh day.

Q: What if I am unsure if a strike is legal?

A: Consult with your union leaders and seek legal advice. Understanding your rights and the legality of the strike is crucial to avoid potential penalties.

Q: As an employer, what steps should I take if a strike is declared?

A: Immediately assess the legality of the strike. If it appears illegal, file a petition with the NLRC to declare it illegal. Document all events and actions during the strike. If considering termination, especially of rank-and-file members, gather evidence of illegal acts committed during the strike.

ASG Law specializes in Labor and Employment Law, assisting both employers and employees in navigating complex labor issues. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.