Tiu Vs Nlrc 1p68i

Tiu vs NLRC Facts: 

Private respondent RBS (Republic Broadcasting System) furnished GMAEU (GMA employees’ Labor Organization) a new copy of guidelines which was meant to address the company’s huge overtime expenses.  The union did not file its comment on the said guidelines; hence private respondent had officially implemented the said guideline (particularly on the availment of leave and overtime).  The day following the implementation, the union sent a letter to the President of RBS, and raised the following issues: - That the company has violated the CBA by implementing a new guidelines without consulting the union.  The RBS Management and the union had initiated to reconcile the matter, however the talks conducted were short lived, as the union refused to participate any further.  GMAEU filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) based on unfair labor practices allegedly committed by RBS, as follows: - Gross violation of the existing collective bargaining agreement; Employees ( and officers) coercion; Union interference; and Discrimination.  On its conciliation meeting, RBS reiterated its request to GMAEUs officers to furnish RBS the details of the alleged unfair practices committed by RBS officers. The Union denied RBS request and refused to hold any further talks with RBS management.  The union holds a strike, and on the same day RBS filed a complaint for illegal strike and unfair labor practices. Where the Secretary of Labor issued a return to work order and certified the case to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration  The labor arbiter found no factual and legal ground to hold RBS guilty of unfair labor practices against the Union. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision. While the arbiter continued to hear the illegal strike case filed by RBS against the union, and later on promulgated a decision declaring the strike illegal and the union officers who knowingly participated in the illegal strike to have validly lost their employment status based on the following reasons: - The notice of strike did not specifically charge the company (RBS) of unfair labor; it was defective as it consisted of vague and general charges which could not be substantiated and which the company could not properly defend itself against. - The alleged gross violation of the collective bargaining agreement cannot constitute an unfair labor practice because said charges were bereft of factual and legal basis. Issue:



Whether or not the Union strike was illegal.

Ruling:  

  



Yes. The notice of strike filed by the union before the NCMB contained general allegations that RBS management committed unfair labor practices by its gross violation of the collective bargaining agreement. Thus, the Union has the burden of proof to provide evidence on this allegation. Further, the Union has not raised the issue of unfair labor practices during the conciliatory meetings. And the Union has continuously refused to substantiate the allegations filed before the NCMB Under Rule the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code In cases of unfair labor practices, the notice of strike shall as far as practicable, state the acts complained of and the efforts to resolve the dispute amicably. The Court affirms the factual finding of the labor arbiter and the NLRC that there was no strikeable issue to respondents (the Union) subject strike. The evidence show that the union anchored its position on alleged unfair labor practices in order to evade not only the grievance machinery but also the no strike clause in their collective bargaining agreement with RBS.