PAN-AM WORLD AIRWAYS, INC. V. PAN-AM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

Topic: Extent and scope of right

FACTS:

Union filed a notice of strike with the Department of Labor and the union declared and maintained a strike against the Airways. Then, President of the Philippines certified the strike to the respondent Court of Industrial Relations as being an industrial dispute affecting the national interest, the parties being called to a conference^.

Several conferences were held between them before the Judge of the said Court. The Union contends  that its members would not resume the performance of their duties unless its officers were likewise included in the return-to-work order.

But the Airway’s stand was that the workers will return to work but not the five officials of  Union. It alleged that the strike was illegal, being offensive to a no-strike clause of an existing collective bargaining agreement the result being that the officials could, as the responsible parties, be liable for dismissal.

Consequently, it was not agreeable to their being allowed to return to the positions held by them prior to the strike as they would not be only lacking in "incentive and motivation for doing their work properly" but would likewise have the opportunity to cause "grave and irreparable injury to petitioner."

Management did offer, however, to deposit their salaries even if they would not be working, with the further promise that they would not even be required to refund any amount should the right to remain in their positions be considered as legally terminated by their calling the alleged illegal strike.

Court of Industrial Relations: Ordered to accept 5 union officers.

MR: Denied. Hence this petition

ISSUE: WON the five union workers should be excluded from a return to work order on the ground of having led an illegal strike, which can be a sufficient cause for dismissal?

RULING: NO. The moment management displays what in this case appears to be grave but unwarranted distrust in the union officials discharging their functions just because a strike was resorted to, then the integrity of the collective bargaining process itself is called into question. It would have been different if there were a rational basis for such fears, purely speculative in character.

The record is bereft of slightest indication that any danger, much less one clear and present, is to be expected from their return to work. Necessarily, the union officials have the right to feel offended by the fact that, while they will be paid their salaries in the meanwhile they would not be considered as fit persons to perform the duties pertaining to the positions held by them. Far from being generous such an offer could rightfully, be considered insulting.

The greater offense is to the labor movement itself, more specifically to the right of self-organization. There is both a constitutional and statutory recognition that laborers have the right to form unions to take care of their interests vis-a-vis their employers. Their freedom organizations would be rendered nugatory if they could not choose their own leaders to speak on their behalf and to bargain for them.

If petitioner were to succeed in their unprecedented demand, the laborers in this particular union would thus be confronted with the sad spectacle of the leaders of their choice condemned as irresponsible, possibly even constituting a menace to the operations of the enterprise. That is an indictment of the gravest character, devoid of any factual basis. What is worse, the result, even if not intended, would be to call into question their undeniable right to choose their leaders, who must be treated as such with all the respect to which they are legitimately entitled. The fact that they would be paid but not be allowed to work is, to repeat, to add to the infamy that would thus attach to them necessarily, but to respondent union equally.

Apparently, respondent Court was alive to the implication of such an unwarranted demand, the effect of which would have been to deprive effectively the rank and file of their freedom of choice as to who should represent them.

For what use are leaders so undeserving of the minimum confidence. To that extent then, their constitutional and statutory right to freedom of association suffers an impairment hardly to be characterized as inconsequential.

DISPOSITIVE: Petition denied. Union won.

DOCTRINE:  In right of self-organization, there is both a constitutional and statutory recognition that laborers have the right to form unions to take care of their interests vis-a-vis their employers. Their freedom organizations would be rendered nugatory if they could not choose their own leaders to speak on their behalf and to bargain for them.