Allied Banking Corp. vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 116128, 116461 (July 12, 1996)

Facts:

The case involves a labor dispute between Allied Banking Corporation (the petitioner) and the Allied Banking Employees Union (the respondent). The conflict arose when the collective bargaining agreement between the bank and the union expired on June 30, 1984, leading to failed negotiations, particularly regarding wage increases. In response, the union filed a notice of strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations.

On December 16, 1984, the then Minister of Labor and Employment, Blas Ople, assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, which included an injunction against the union from striking and the bank from locking out employees. Following this, a return-to-work order was issued on January 6, 1985, which included a monetary grant to employees. However, the union resumed striking on February 11, 1985, leading to violence and criminal charges against some strikers.

Despite the return-to-work order, the union members did not comply, prompting the bank to issue termination notices for abandonment of work. On March 7, 1985, Minister Ople modified his earlier order, allowing the union to lift its picket lines, but the bank refused to reinstate the strikers, claiming they had already been dismissed.

The union filed a petition for certiorari to challenge the bank's refusal to reinstate the strikers. In subsequent orders, the Minister of Labor directed the bank to provisionally reinstate all striking workers except those who had accepted separation pay or had pending criminal charges. However, only 71 of the 112 affected employees were reinstated, leaving 41 employees, including the individual respondents, without reinstatement.

The case went through various administrative and judicial proceedings, with the Labor Arbiter ultimately ruling that the strikes were illegal and that the union officers lost their employment status. However, the Arbiter also found that the individual respondents, who were not union officers, did not commit illegal acts and were entitled to reinstatement and back wages.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) later upheld the dismissal of the union officers but remanded the issue of back wages for the 41 individual respondents to the Labor Arbiter. The bank contested this decision, leading to the current petitions for review.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the striking union members were validly dismissed for abandonment of work after failing to comply with the return-to-work order issued by the Secretary of Labor.
2. Whether the NLRC erred in remanding the issue of back wages to the Labor Arbiter despite the finding of valid dismissal.

Arguments:

• Petitioner (Allied Banking Corporation):

  • The bank argued that the union members' failure to comply with the return-to-work order constituted abandonment of work, justifying their dismissal.
  • The bank maintained that the strikes were illegal due to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor, which automatically enjoined any intended or ongoing strike.
  • The bank contended that the NLRC's remand for back wages was inconsistent with the finding of valid dismissal.

• Respondents (Union and Individual Employees):

  • The respondents argued that mere participation in an illegal strike should not automatically result in termination from employment.
  • They contended that they acted in good faith and were merely exercising their rights in response to unfair labor practices by the bank.
  • The respondents claimed that the NLRC's remand for back wages was justified, as they had not been reinstated since 1986.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC's finding that the private respondents were validly dismissed due to their defiance of the return-to-work order issued by the Secretary of Labor. The Court emphasized that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor automatically enjoined any strike, and failure to comply with the return-to-work order constituted a valid ground for dismissal.

The Court clarified that the return-to-work order is not merely a right but an obligation that must be complied with, regardless of the legality of the strike. The Court also noted that the respondents' claims of good faith and unfair labor practices did not excuse their failure to comply with the order.

As for the remand of the issue of back wages, the Court found it illogical and inconsistent with the finding of valid dismissal. The Court ruled that an award of back wages is incompatible with the determination that the respondents were validly dismissed for their actions.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. The assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor automatically enjoins any intended or ongoing strike, and failure to comply with a return-to-work order can result in valid dismissal.
2. Mere participation in an illegal strike does not automatically lead to termination; however, defiance of a return-to-work order is a valid ground for dismissal.
3. The obligation to comply with a return-to-work order is not optional and must be adhered to, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the strike.