NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO CHAPTER v. CA

--------------------------------------------------

088 NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO CHAPTER v. CA

G.R. No. 163942/ G.R. No. 166295

November 11, 2008

Digest by: Michelle Vale Cruz

--------------------------------------------------

Petitioner: NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN THE HOTEL RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES (NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF) DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO CHAPTER

Respondent: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (Former Eighth Division), THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS INC., owner and operator of DUSIT HOTEL NIKKO and/or CHIYUKI FUJIMOTO, and ESPERANZA V. ALVEZ

Ponente: Velasco

Topic: Bargaining Procedure: Conciliation/preventive mediation

FACTS:

The Union is the certified bargaining agent of the regular rank-and-file employees of Dusit Hotel Nikko (Hotel).

On October 24, 2000, the Union submitted its Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiation proposals to the Hotel. As negotiations ensued, the parties failed to arrive at mutually acceptable terms and conditions. Due to the bargaining deadlock, the Union, on December 20, 2001, filed a Notice of Strike on the ground of the bargaining deadlock with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB)

Thereafter, conciliation hearings were conducted which proved unsuccessful.

Soon thereafter, in the afternoon of January 17, 2002, the Union held a general assembly at its office located in the Hotels basement, where some members sported closely cropped hair or cleanly shaven heads.

The next day, or on January 18, 2002, more male Union members came to work sporting the same hair style. The Hotel prevented these workers from entering the premises claiming that they violated the Hotels Grooming Standards.

In view of the Hotels action, the Union staged a picket outside the Hotel premises. Later, other workers were also prevented from entering the Hotel causing them to join the picket. For this reason the Hotel experienced a severe lack of manpower which forced them to temporarily cease operations in three restaurants.

Consequently, the Hotel issued notices to Union members, preventively suspending them and charging them with the following offenses: (1) violation of the duty to bargain in good faith; (2) illegal picket; (3) unfair labor practice; (4) violation of the Hotels Grooming Standards; (5) illegal strike; and (6) commission of illegal acts during the illegal strike.

The next day, the Union filed with the NCMB a second Notice of Strike on the ground of unfair labor practice and violation of Article 248(a) of the Labor Code on illegal lockout

The Hotel terminated the services of 29 Union officers and 61 members; and suspended 81 employees for 30 days, forty-eight 48 employees for 15 days, 4) employees for 10 days, and 3 employees for five days. On the same day, the Union declared a strike. Starting that day, the Union engaged in picketing the premises of the Hotel. During the picket, the Union officials and members unlawfully blocked the ingress and egress of the Hotel premises.

The Union filed its third Notice of Strike with the NCMB, this time on the ground of unfair labor practice and union-busting.

NLRC Decision: It ordered the Hotel and the Union to execute a CBA within 30 days from the receipt of the decision. NLRC ruled that the strike conducted was illegal.

CA affirmed NLRC’s decision

ISSUE: W/N the Union is guiltyfor illegal strike

RULING: YES.

First, the Unions violation of the Hotels Grooming Standards was clearly a deliberate and concerted action to undermine the authority of and to embarrass the Hotel and was, therefore, not a protected action. The appearances of the Hotel employees directly reflect the character and well-being of the Hotel, being a five-star hotel that provides service to top-notch clients. It can be gleaned from the records before us that the Union officers and members deliberately and in apparent concert shaved their heads or cropped their hair. This was shown by the fact that after coming to work on January 18, 2002, some Union members even had their heads shaved or their hair cropped at the Union office in the Hotels basement. Clearly, the decision to violate the company rule on grooming was designed and calculated to place the Hotel management on its heels and to force it to agree to the Unions proposals. This Court is of the opinion, therefore, that the act of the Union was not merely an expression of their grievance or displeasure but, indeed, a calibrated and calculated act designed to inflict serious damage to the Hotels finances or its reputation. Thus, we hold that the Unions concerted violation of the Hotels Grooming Standards which resulted in the temporary cessation and disruption of the Hotels operations is an unprotected act and should be considered as an illegal strike.

Second, the Unions concerted action which disrupted the Hotels operations clearly violated the CBAs No Strike, No Lockout provision. The facts are clear that the strike arose out of a bargaining deadlock in the CBA negotiations with the Hotel. The concerted action is an economic strike upon which the afore-quoted no strike/work stoppage and lockout prohibition is squarely applicable and legally binding.

RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC REGARDING CONCILITION: Third, the Union officers and members concerted action to shave their heads and crop their hair not only violated the Hotels Grooming Standards but also violated the Unions duty and responsibility to bargain in good faith. By shaving their heads and cropping their hair, the Union officers and members violated then Section 6, Rule XIII of the Implementing Rules of Book V of the Labor Code. This rule prohibits the commission of any act which will disrupt or impede the early settlement of the labor disputes that are under conciliation. Since the bargaining deadlock is being conciliated by the NCMB, the Unions action to have their officers and members heads shaved was manifestly calculated to antagonize and embarrass the Hotel management and in doing so effectively disrupted the operations of the Hotel and violated their duty to bargain collectively in good faith.

Fourth, the Union failed to observe the mandatory 30-day cooling-off period and the seven-day strike ban before it conducted the strike on January 18, 2002. The NLRC correctly held that the Union failed to observe the mandatory periods before conducting or holding a strike. Records reveal that the Union filed its Notice of Strike on the ground of bargaining deadlock on December 20, 2001. The 30-day cooling-off period should have been until January 19, 2002. On top of that, the strike vote was held on January 14, 2002 and was submitted to the NCMB only on January 18, 2002; therefore, the 7-day strike ban should have prevented them from holding a strike until January 25, 2002. The concerted action committed by the Union on January 18, 2002 which resulted in the disruption of the Hotels operations clearly violated the above-stated mandatory periods.

Last, the Union committed illegal acts in the conduct of its strike. The NLRC ruled that the strike was illegal since, as shown by the pictures presented by the Hotel, the Union officers and members formed human barricades and obstructed the driveway of the Hotel. There is no merit in the Unions argument that it was not its members but the Hotels security guards and the police officers who blocked the driveway, as it can be seen that the guards and/or police officers were just trying to secure the entrance to the Hotel. The pictures clearly demonstrate the tense and highly explosive situation brought about by the strikers presence in the Hotels driveway.