ASG Law

Tag: Union Officer

  • Strikes and Slowdowns: The Limits of Union Power in Philippine Labor Law

    The Supreme Court affirmed that employees participating in an illegal strike or slowdown can be terminated. This decision underscores the importance of lawful conduct during labor disputes and clarifies the boundaries of permissible actions for union members and officers. The ruling serves as a reminder that while workers have the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining, these rights are not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of the law. Union officers, in particular, have a responsibility to guide their members in respecting legal boundaries; failure to do so can result in severe consequences, including dismissal.

    When a ‘Slowdown’ Becomes an Illegal Strike: The Case of Polyson Industries

    In Errol Ramirez, Julito Apas, Ricky Roselo and Esteban Mission, Jr. vs. Polyson Industries, Inc. and Wilson S. Yu, the central issue revolved around the legality of the petitioners’ dismissal from Polyson Industries. The company accused the petitioners, who were union officers, of instigating a slowdown by inducing employees to refuse overtime work. This slowdown allegedly resulted in significant financial losses for Polyson, leading to the termination of the union officers. The legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the actions of the union officers constituted an illegal strike and whether their dismissal was justified under the Labor Code.

    The court’s analysis hinged on two critical aspects of due process in labor cases: substantive and procedural. Substantive due process requires that the dismissal be based on a just or authorized cause, as defined by the Labor Code. Procedural due process, on the other hand, mandates that the employer follow the correct procedure in effecting the dismissal, including providing the employee with notice and an opportunity to be heard. The employer bears the burden of proving the validity of the dismissal with clear and convincing evidence.

    In this case, the NLRC found that the petitioners had indeed instigated an illegal activity by inducing and/or threatening workers not to render overtime work. The NLRC considered this a calculated effort amounting to an “overtime boycott” or “work slowdown,” which caused Polyson significant financial losses. The Supreme Court upheld these findings, emphasizing that it is not duty-bound to delve into the accuracy of the NLRC’s factual findings unless there is a clear showing of arbitrariness. The court reiterated the principle that union officers must guide their members to respect the law, and failure to do so warrants a just penalty.

    The evidence presented by Polyson played a crucial role in the court’s decision. The company presented the Cutting Section Overtime Sheet, where employees indicated that they were prevented from working overtime. Visca and Tuting identified the petitioners as those who pressured them not to work overtime during the administrative hearing and in their written statements. The court gave weight to these affirmative assertions, noting the absence of any apparent motive for Visca and Tuting to fabricate their claims.

    The court also cited an Incident Report where one of the petitioners stated, “[DI BA] SABI NINYO EIGHT (8) HOURS LANG KAMI. EH DI EIGHT (8) NA LANG. KUNG MAG[-]OOVERTIME KAMI DAPAT LAHAT MAY OVERTIME. AYAW KO MAGKAWATAK WATAK ANG MGA TAO KO.” This statement indicated that the petitioners were fully aware of and responsible for the events during the scheduled overtime. Thus, the court agreed with the NLRC and the CA that the petitioners were guilty of instigating a slowdown, which is considered an illegal activity.

    The Supreme Court clarified the definition of a slowdown.

    x x x a “strike on the installment plan;” as a willful reduction in the rate of work by concerted action of workers for the purpose of restricting the output of the employer, in relation to a labor dispute; as an activity by which workers, without a complete stoppage of work, retard production or their performance of duties and functions to compel management to grant their demands. The Court also agrees that such a slowdown is generally condemned as inherently illicit and unjustifiable, because while the employees “continue to work and remain at their positions and accept the wages paid to them,” they at the same time “select what part of their allotted tasks they care to perform of their own volition or refuse openly or secretly, to the employer’s damage, to do other work;” in other words, they “work on their own terms.

    The court emphasized that the law does not require a slowdown to be carefully planned or participated in by a large number of workers. The essence of a slowdown is that workers reduce their rate of work to restrict output or delay production. Even if only a few employees participate, it can still constitute an illegal strike if the purpose is to disrupt the employer’s operations. The petitioners engaged in a slowdown when they induced their co-workers to quit their scheduled overtime work, resulting in a delay in Polyson’s output.

    Procedural due process was also satisfied in this case. The employer furnished the employees with two written notices before the termination of their employment: the first informing them of the acts for which their dismissal was sought, and the second informing them of the employer’s decision to dismiss them. The court clarified that the requirement of a hearing is complied with as long as there was an opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted. Polyson established that these requirements were sufficiently complied with.

    Article 264(a) of the Labor Code provides the legal basis for the dismissal of union officers who participate in illegal strikes:

    x x x x

    x x x 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.

    The court underscored the importance of maintaining a stable relationship between labor and management, as well as the welfare of the entire workforce. Illegal strikes and unlawful acts during strikes can destabilize the social order and disrupt the economic well-being of the State. The law imposes the penalty of dismissal on union officers who irresponsibly participate in illegal strikes and union members who commit unlawful acts during a strike.

    FAQs

    What was the central issue in this case? The central issue was whether the dismissal of union officers who instigated a slowdown by inducing employees to refuse overtime work was valid under the Labor Code. The court examined whether their actions constituted an illegal strike.
    What is a slowdown? A slowdown is defined as a “strike on the installment plan,” where workers reduce their rate of work to restrict the employer’s output or delay production. It is generally considered an illegal activity.
    What are the two aspects of due process in labor cases? The two aspects of due process are substantive and procedural. Substantive due process requires a just or authorized cause for dismissal, while procedural due process requires that the employer provide notice and an opportunity to be heard.
    What evidence did Polyson Industries present to support its case? Polyson presented the Cutting Section Overtime Sheet, the testimonies of Visca and Tuting, and an Incident Report. These pieces of evidence supported the claim that the petitioners induced and pressured employees not to work overtime.
    What is the role of union officers in strikes? Union officers have a responsibility to guide their members to respect the law. If they urge members to violate the law or defy authorities, their dismissal from service is a just penalty.
    What does Article 264(a) of the Labor Code say about illegal strikes? Article 264(a) of the Labor Code states that any union officer who knowingly participates in an illegal strike or commits illegal acts during a strike may lose their employment status. This provision emphasizes the severe consequences of unlawful actions during labor disputes.
    Is it necessary for a large number of workers to participate in a slowdown for it to be considered illegal? No, it is not necessary for a large number of workers to participate. The essence of a slowdown is the reduction of the rate of work to restrict output or delay production, regardless of the number of participants.
    What are the notice requirements for procedural due process in termination proceedings? The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices: the first informing them of the acts for which their dismissal is sought, and the second informing them of the employer’s decision to dismiss them. This ensures that employees are aware of the charges against them and have an opportunity to respond.

    This case serves as a significant reminder of the boundaries within which unions and their officers must operate. Engaging in illegal activities, such as instigating slowdowns, can have severe consequences, including dismissal from employment. It is crucial for union leaders to guide their members in respecting the law to maintain a stable and productive relationship between labor and management.

    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: Errol Ramirez, et al. vs. Polyson Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 207898, October 19, 2016

  • Illegal Strikes and Employee Rights: Balancing Participation and Illegal Acts

    This Supreme Court decision clarifies the rights of employees participating in strikes, distinguishing between mere participation in an illegal strike and the commission of illegal acts during such a strike. The Court ruled that employees who merely participate in an illegal strike cannot be terminated, but those who commit illegal acts or are union officers knowingly participating in an illegal strike may face termination. This distinction aims to protect workers’ rights to protest while holding accountable those who engage in unlawful behavior during labor disputes. This balance ensures that employers cannot arbitrarily punish employees for collective action, while also maintaining order and preventing violence during strikes.

    Striking a Balance: When Protest Becomes Illegal, and What It Means for Hospital Workers

    The case of Visayas Community Medical Center (VCMC) v. Erma Yballe, et al. revolves around the dismissal of several hospital employees who participated in a strike. The Visayas Community Medical Center (VCMC), formerly known as Metro Cebu Community Hospital (MCCH), faced a labor dispute when its employees, represented by the National Federation of Labor (NFL), engaged in concerted activities to protest the hospital’s refusal to bargain collectively. However, a breakaway group, NAMA-MCCH-NFL, led by Perla Nava, conducted a strike that the hospital deemed illegal. This led to the termination of numerous employees, including the respondents in this case: Erma Yballe, Nelia Angel, Eleuteria Cortez, and Evelyn Ong. The central legal question is whether the termination of these employees was lawful, considering their participation in what was deemed an illegal strike.

    The factual backdrop is crucial. In 1996, a series of mass actions, including wearing armbands, marching around the hospital, and setting up placards, disrupted the hospital’s operations. The hospital management, citing the illegality of the strike due to the union’s lack of legal personality, terminated the employees who participated. The terminated employees then filed complaints for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practices. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the complaints, but ordered the hospital to pay separation pay to those who were merely members and not leaders of the striking union. This decision was appealed, leading to conflicting rulings from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals (CA).

    The Supreme Court, in analyzing the case, underscored the importance of distinguishing between union members and union officers in the context of an illegal strike. The Court referenced Article 264(a) of the Labor Code, which states that:

    “…[a]ny 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…”

    Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that while a union officer could face termination for knowingly participating in an illegal strike, a mere union member could only be terminated if they committed illegal acts during the strike. This distinction is critical in safeguarding the rights of ordinary workers who may be influenced by union leadership but do not engage in unlawful conduct. The Court emphasized that there was no evidence to suggest that the respondents committed any illegal act during the strike. Their participation was primarily limited to wearing armbands, which, according to the Court, does not warrant termination.

    The Court of Appeals had initially ordered the reinstatement of the respondents and the payment of back wages. The Supreme Court, however, modified this decision. While affirming the CA’s ruling that the respondents were illegally dismissed, the Supreme Court deleted the award of back wages and the order for reinstatement. This was based on the principle that employees who participate in an illegal strike are not entitled to back wages, aligning with the principle of “a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor.” The Court also took into account the long period that had elapsed since the labor dispute began, as well as the strained relations between the parties, making reinstatement no longer feasible.

    Instead of reinstatement and back wages, the Supreme Court ordered VCMC to pay the respondents separation pay equivalent to one month’s pay for every year of service. This remedy aligns with established jurisprudence, which recognizes that separation pay is appropriate when reinstatement is no longer viable due to various factors, including the passage of time, strained relations, and the employer’s need to hire replacements. This decision balances the rights of the employees with the practical realities of the situation, providing a fair resolution to a long-standing labor dispute.

    This approach contrasts with cases where employees engage in illegal acts during a strike, such as violence, intimidation, or obstruction of business operations. In such instances, the employees may be lawfully terminated, as their actions undermine the employer’s right to conduct business and maintain order. The distinction lies in the nature of the employee’s conduct and its impact on the employer’s operations.

    The Court also addressed the issue of inconsistent positions taken by the respondents. Initially, the respondents seemed to acknowledge their participation in the strike before the NLRC, but later denied it before the CA. The Supreme Court noted this inconsistency but focused on the lack of evidence of any illegal acts committed by the respondents during the strike. Thus, while their inconsistent stance was noted, it did not negate their right to relief, given that they did not engage in unlawful conduct.

    The ruling in Visayas Community Medical Center v. Yballe has significant implications for labor law. It clarifies the extent to which employees can participate in strikes without risking termination, emphasizing the distinction between mere participation and the commission of illegal acts. This decision reinforces the importance of due process in labor disputes and ensures that employers cannot arbitrarily punish employees for exercising their right to collective action. The case also highlights the complexities of labor relations and the need for a balanced approach that considers the rights of both employers and employees.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the termination of hospital employees who participated in a strike was lawful, considering the strike was deemed illegal by the hospital. The Court had to determine the extent to which employees could participate in strikes without risking termination.
    What is the difference between a union member and a union officer in an illegal strike? A union officer can be terminated for knowingly participating in an illegal strike, while a union member can only be terminated if they commit illegal acts during the strike. This distinction protects ordinary workers from being unfairly punished for the actions of union leaders.
    What are considered illegal acts during a strike? Illegal acts during a strike can include violence, intimidation, obstruction of business operations, or any other unlawful conduct that undermines the employer’s right to conduct business. These acts go beyond mere participation in the strike and directly harm the employer’s interests.
    What is separation pay? Separation pay is a monetary benefit given to an employee whose employment is terminated for reasons other than misconduct or poor performance. It is often awarded when reinstatement is no longer feasible due to the passage of time or strained relations.
    Why were the respondents not awarded back wages in this case? The respondents were not awarded back wages because they participated in an illegal strike. The principle of “a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor” dictates that employees who do not work due to an illegal strike are not entitled to compensation.
    What does this case say about employees who change their positions during a labor dispute? The Court noted that the respondents had taken inconsistent positions regarding their participation in the strike. While this was considered, the Court focused on the lack of evidence of any illegal acts committed by the respondents, ensuring they were not unduly penalized.
    What factors did the Supreme Court consider when deciding not to order reinstatement? The Supreme Court considered the long period that had elapsed since the labor dispute began, the strained relations between the parties, and the fact that the hospital had already hired replacements. These factors made reinstatement no longer feasible.
    What is the significance of Article 264(a) of the Labor Code? Article 264(a) of the Labor Code is crucial because it outlines the consequences for participating in illegal strikes. It distinguishes between union officers and members, specifying the conditions under which they may be terminated from employment.

    In conclusion, Visayas Community Medical Center v. Yballe offers a nuanced understanding of employee rights during labor disputes, particularly in the context of illegal strikes. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a guide for employers and employees alike, clarifying the boundaries of lawful protest and the consequences of engaging in illegal acts. This case underscores the importance of balancing the rights of workers to engage in collective action with the need to maintain order and prevent unlawful conduct during labor disputes.

    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: VISAYAS COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER (VCMC) VS. ERMA YBALLE, G.R. No. 196156, January 15, 2014

  • Illegal Strikes in the Philippines: Protecting Rank-and-File Employees from Unjust Dismissal

    Protecting Rank-and-File Employees During Illegal Strikes: A Philippine Jurisprudence Analysis

    Strikes are a powerful tool for workers, but they must be conducted within the bounds of the law. Philippine law distinguishes between union officers and ordinary members when a strike is declared illegal. This case highlights that while union officers face stricter penalties for participating in illegal strikes, ordinary members are shielded from termination unless proven to have committed illegal acts during the strike. This protection ensures that workers are not unduly punished for collective action, even if procedural missteps occur.

    CCBPI POSTMIX WORKERS UNION vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and COCA-COLA BOTTLERS, PHIL., INC., G.R.NO. 123491, NOVEMBER 27, 1998

    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.