Marcopper Mining Corp. vs. Brillantes

G.R. No. 119381 (March 11, 1996)

Facts:

Petitioner Marcopper Mining Corporation, a corporation with 49% equity owned by the Philippine government, is engaged in the exploration, development, and extraction of copper and other mineral ores. It employs over 1,000 workers and operates the San Antonio Copper Project, which is vital for the local economy and is financed through significant loans. In December 1994, the company granted its employees a year-end profit bonus based on their employment category, which led to allegations of unfair labor practices by the National Mines and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWU) and its local chapter, the Marcopper Employees Labor Union (MELU). The unions claimed violations of the collective bargaining agreement regarding job evaluation and discrimination in the profit bonus distribution.

After failed conciliation proceedings, the unions filed a Notice of Strike on December 28, 1994. The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) determined that the issues were non-strikeable and appropriate for grievance machinery. Despite this, the unions filed a second Notice of Strike on January 24, 1995, citing additional grounds including union busting. On February 20, 1995, Marcopper filed a petition for the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over the dispute, which was granted on February 24, 1995, prohibiting any strike or lockout.

Despite the order, the union went on strike on February 27, 1995. The Secretary of Labor issued a return-to-work order on February 28, 1995, which was ignored by most workers. On March 4, 1995, Marcopper issued a notice requiring employees to return to work by March 5, 1995, warning that failure to do so would result in termination. Only about 40 workers complied, and the rest received termination letters.

The union filed a motion for reconsideration of the Secretary's orders, which was denied on March 9, 1995. On March 20, 1995, the Acting Secretary of Labor ordered Marcopper to accept the workers back, leading to the present petition for certiorari by Marcopper, challenging the legality of this order.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the Secretary of Labor gravely abused his discretion in ordering Marcopper to accept back the workers who defied the return-to-work order.
2. The legality of the dismissals of the workers who failed to return to work after the Secretary's orders.

Arguments:

• Petitioner (Marcopper Mining Corporation):

  • Argued that the Secretary of Labor's order to accept the workers was an abuse of discretion, as the workers had defied the return-to-work order and thus were legally dismissed for abandonment of employment. The company maintained that the Secretary's orders did not adjudicate the legality of the dismissals and that the issue should be resolved in compulsory arbitration.

• Respondents (NAMAWU and MELU):

  • Contended that the legality of the dismissals should be determined in the ongoing arbitration proceedings and that the Secretary's order was necessary to maintain industrial peace and protect the workers' rights.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the March 20, 1995 order of the Acting Secretary of Labor. The Court held that the Secretary did not determine the legality of the workers' termination but rather referred the issue to compulsory arbitration. The Court emphasized that the return-to-work order is a statutory obligation under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, and failure to comply results in loss of employment status.

The Court noted that the Secretary's findings indicated the union's actions were in defiance of the law, and it would be unreasonable to compel Marcopper to accept workers who refused to return to work. The Court highlighted the national interest involved, as Marcopper's operations were crucial for the local economy and the supply of electrical power in the province.

The Court directed the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to expedite the arbitration proceedings and resolve the dispute within a specified timeframe, ensuring that the issues would be settled without preempting the NLRC's authority.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. A return-to-work order issued by the Secretary of Labor is a statutory obligation for workers, and non-compliance can lead to termination of employment.
2. The Secretary of Labor's orders regarding labor disputes must be adhered to, and defiance can result in forfeiture of rights to reinstatement.
3. The NLRC is the proper forum for the resolution of labor disputes, and the Supreme Court will not preempt its authority in adjudicating such matters.