Philtread Workers Union v. Confesor

PHILTREAD WORKERS UNION V.
CONFESOR that the instant labor dispute does not adversely affect the
national interest
FACTS:
1. Petitioner filed a notice of strike on grounds of unfair labor HELD:
practice, more specifically union busting and violation of CBA.
Private respondent Philtread Corporation filed a petition to First Issue:
declare illegal the work slowdowns staged by the petitioner 1. Articles 263 (g) and 264 of the Labor Code have been enacted
Union. pursuant to the police power of the State, which has been
2. NLRC: The slowdowns engaged in by respondents are declared defined as the power inherent in a government to enact laws,
illegal and by engaging in such illegal activities, respondents within constitutional limits, to promote the order, safety,
whose name appear in Annex "A" of the petition are deemed health, morals and general welfare of society.
to have lost their employment with petitioner. 2. Said article clearly does not interfere with the workers' right to
3. Secretary of Labor Confesor assume jurisdiction over the labor strike but merely regulates it, when in the exercise of such
dispute. Petitioner then filed an MR which was denied. right, national interests will be affected. The rights granted by
4. Petitioners now challenge the order of the public respondent the Constitution are not absolute. They are still subject to
and raised the following issues control and limitation to ensure that they are not exercised
arbitrarily.
ISSUES: 3. The interests of both the employers and employees are
1. WON Article 236(g) of the Labor Code is unconstitutional? intended to be protected and not one of them is given undue
2. WON Confesor acted with grave abuse of discretion? preference.
4. The Labor Code vests upon the Secretary of Labor the
Petitioners Argument discretion to determine what industries are indispensable to
national interest. Thus, upon the determination of the
1. Petitioners contend that Article 263 (g) of the Labor Code Secretary of Labor that such industry is indispensable to the
violates the workers' right to strike which is provided for by national interest, it will assume jurisdiction over the labor
Section 3, Article XIII of the Constitution. The assailed order of dispute of said industry.
the Secretary of Labor, which enjoins the strike, is an utter 5. The assumption of jurisdiction is in the nature of police power
interference of the workers' right to self-organization, to measure. This is done for the promotion of the common good
manage their own affairs, activities and programs, and considering that a prolonged strike or lockout can be inimical
therefore is illegal. to the national economy.
2. Petitioners also argue that the assailed order was issued with a. Thus, his certification for compulsory arbitration is not
grave abuse of authority. A cursory reading of Article 263 (g) intended to impede the workers' right to strike but to
allegedly shows that the power of the Secretary of Labor to obtain a speedy settlement of the dispute.
assume jurisdiction or to certify a dispute for compulsory
arbitration is strictly restricted to cases involving industries Second Issue:
that are indispensable to national interest. Petitioners posit
1. No. Confesor did not act with grave abuse of discretion in
issuing the certification for compulsory arbitration.
2. It had been determined that the work slowdowns conducted
by the petitioner amounted to illegal strikes. It was shown that
every time the respondent company failed to accede to the
petitioner's demands, production always declined.
3. The work slowdowns, which were in effect, strikes on
installment basis, were apparently a pattern of manipulating
production depending on whether the petitioner union's
demands were met.
4. Respondent company is indispensable to national interest
considering that respondent supplies 22% of the tire products
in the country. Furthermore, the Company is one of the tire
manufacturers in the country employing more or less 700
workers. Any work disruption thereat, as a result of a labor
dispute will certainly prejudice the employment and livelihood
of its workers and their dependents.

Philtread Workers Union v. Confesor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philtread Workers Union v. Confesor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philtread Workers Union v. Confesor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHILTREAD WORKERS UNION V.

You might also like