Picketing

CREATED BY: PRINCESS CABAÑOG

 Topics to Cover
∙ Definition, Nature and Purpose of Picket
Line
∙ Limitations on the right to picket
∙ Prohibited Activities; Peaceful Picketing
∙ Picketing and Libel Laws
∙ Curtailment
∙ Regulation, Restrictions, Innocent, Third
Party Rules and Liabilities
∙ Injunction Against Picketing
∙ Roles of Peace Officer during Picketing
Hypelane Clothing Co. 2020
Santa Rosa Coca-Cola Plant
Employees Union v. Coca-
Cola Bottlers, Phil., supra
Presentations FACTS:
The individual petitioners are Union officers, directors,
and shop stewards Santa Rosa Coca-Cola Plant. Upon
the expiration of the CBA, the Union informed the
Company of its desire to renegotiate its terms. The Union
insisted that representatives from the Alyansa ng mga
Unyon sa Coca-Cola be allowed to sit down as observers
in the CBA meetings. The Union officers and members
also insisted that their wages be based on their work
shift rates. For its part, the Company was of the view that
the members of the Alyansa were not members of the
bargaining unit and that it is not a registered labor
organization. The Union filed a "Notice of Strike" .The
petitioners relied on two grounds: (a) deadlock on CBA
ground rules; and (b) unfair labor practice arising from
the company’s refusal to bargain.
Santa Rosa Coca-Cola Plant
Employees Union v. Coca-
Cola Bottlers, Phil., supra
Presentations FACTS:
The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that
the reasons cited by the Union were not valid grounds
for a strike.

Meanwhile, the Union decided to participate in a mass

action organized by the Alyansa ng mga Unyon sa Coca-
Cola in front of the Company’s premises. 106 employees
filed an applications for leave of absence. The Company
disapproved all leave applications and notified the
applicants accordingly. A day before the mass action,
some Union members wore gears, red tag cloths stating
"YES KAMI SA STRIKE" as headgears and on the different
parts of their uniform, shoulders and chests.are
communication tools that can be demonstrations,
lectures, speeches, reports, and more.
Continuation of FACTS
The Office of the Mayor issued a permit to the Union, allowing
it "to conduct a mass protest action within the perimeter of the
Coca-Cola plant .Thus, the Union officers and members held a
picket along the front perimeter of the plant.

On October 13, 1999, the Company filed a "Petition to Declare

Strike Illegal" alleging that there was a deadlock in the CBA
negotiations between the Union and Company, as a result of
which a Notice of Strike was filed by the Union; pending
resolution of the Notice of Strike, the Union members filed
applications for leave which were disapproved because
operations in the plant may be disrupted, the Union staged a
protest action by wearing red arm bands denouncing the
alleged anti-labor practices of the company; since the Union
did not observe the requirements mandated by law, i.e., strike
vote, cooling-off period and reporting requirements, the strike
was therefore illegal; the Union also violated the provision of the
CBA on the grievance machinery; there being a direct violation
of the CBA, the Union’s action constituted an unfair labor
practice; and the officers who knowingly participated in the
commission of illegal acts during the strike should be declared
to have lost their employment status.
ISSUES ISSUE NO. 1
Whether the Sept. 21, 1999 mass
action staged by the Union was a
strike;

ISSUE NO. 2
if, in the affirmative, whether it was
legal; and

ISSUE NO. 3
Whether the individual officers and
shop stewards of petitioner Union
should be dismissed from their
employment.
HELD ( ISSUE NO. 1 )
YES. The ruling of the CA that petitioners staged a
strike on Sept. 21, 1999, and not merely a picket is correct.
The term “strike” encompasses not only concerted work
stoppages, but also slowdowns, mass leaves, sit-downs,
attempts to damage, destroy or sabotage plant
equipment and facilities, and similar activities.
Petitioners notified the respondent of their intention to
stage a strike, and not merely to picket. Petitioners’
insistence to stage a strike is evident in the fact that an
amended notice to strike was filed even as respondent
moved to dismiss the first notice. The bare fact that
petitioners were given a Mayor’s permit is not conclusive
evidence that their action/activity did not amount to
strike. The Mayor’s description of what activities
petitioners were allowed to conduct is inconsequential.
What is definitive of whether the action staged by
petitioners is a strike and not merely a picket is the
totality of the circumstances surrounding the situation.
HELD ( ISSUE NO. 2 )
NO. For a strike to be valid, the following procedural
requisites provided by the Labor Code must be observed:
• A notice of strike filed with the DOLE 30 days before the
intended date thereof, or 15 days in case of ULP; • Strike
vote approved by a majority of the total union
membership in the bargaining unit concerned obtained
by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose; •
Notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at
least 7 days before the intended strike. These
requirements are mandatory and the failure of a union
to comply therewith renders strike illegal. It is clear in
this case that petitioners totally ignored the statutory
requirements and embarked on their illegal strike.
HELD ( ISSUE NO. 3 )
The law makes a distinction between union members
and union officers. A worker merely participating in an
illegal strike may not be terminated from employment. It
is only when he commits illegal acts during a strike that
he may be declared to have lost employment status. For
knowingly participating in an illegal strike or participates
in the commission of illegal acts during a strike, the law
provides that a union officer may be terminated from
employment. Petitioners who are shop stewards are
considered union officers. In this case, instead of playing
the role of “peacemakers” and grievance solvers, the
petitioners-shop stewards participated in the strike.
Thus, like the officers and directors of petitioner Union
who joined the strike, petitioners-shop stewards also
deserve the penalty of dismissal from their employment.
The petition is denied for lack of merit.
WHAT IS THE
DEFINITION AND
PURPOSE OF A PICKET
BASED ON THE CASE?
Ratio: “Picketing involves merely the marching to
and fro at the premises of the employer, usually
accompanied by the display of placards and
other signs making known the facts involved in a
labor dispute. As applied to a labor dispute, to
picket means the stationing of one or more
persons to observe and attempt to observe. The
purpose of pickets is said to be a means of
peaceable persuasion.”
Insular Life Assurance Co.,
Ltd. Employees Association
v. Insular Life Assurance Co.,
Ltd., supra
Presentations FACTS:
The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees
Association - NATU, FGU Insurance Group Workers and
Employees Association - NATU, and Insular Life
Building Employees Association - NATU (herein
referred to as the Unions), while still members of the
Federation of Free Workers (FFW), entered into
separate collective bargaining agreements with the
Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., and the FGU Insurance
Group (herein referred to as the Companies).
Insular Life Assurance Co.,
Ltd. Employees Association
v. Insular Life Assurance Co.,
Ltd., supra
Continuation of FACTS:
On October 1957, negotiations for the collective
bargaining was conducted but resulted to a deadlock.
From April 25 to May 6, 1958, the parties negotiated on
the labor demands but with no satisfactory results
due to the stalemate on the matter of salary increases.
This prompted the Unions to declare a strike in
protest against what they considered the Companies’
unfair labor practices. On May 20, 1958, the Unions
went on strike and picketed the offices of the Insular
Life Building at Plaza Moraga.
Insular Life Assurance Co.,
Ltd. Employees Association
v. Insular Life Assurance Co.,
Ltd., supra
Continuation of FACTS:
On May 21, Jose M. Olbes, the acting manager and
president, sent individual letters to the striking
employees urging them to abandon their strike with a
promise of free coffee, movies, overtime pay, and
accommodations. He also warned the strikers if they fail
to return to work by a certain date, they might be
replaced in their jobs. Further, the Companies hired men
to break into the picket lines resulting in violence, and
the filing of criminal charges against some union officers
and members. When eventually, the strikers called off
their strike to return to their jobs, they were subjected to
a screening process by a management committee,
among the members were Garcia and Enaje. After
screening, eighty-three (83) strikers were rejected due to
pending criminal charges, and adamantly refused
readmission of thirty-four (34) officials and members of
the Unions who were most active in the strike.
ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT THE
COMPANIES ARE GUILTY OF
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE
STRIKING MEMBERS OF THE
UNIONS IN READMISSION OF
EMPLOYEES AFTER THE
STRIKE.
 HELD
Some of the members of the Unions were refused
readmission because they had pending criminal charges.
However, despite the fact they were able to secure
clearances, 34 officials and members were still refused
readmission on the alleged ground that they committed
acts inimical to the Companies. It should be noted,
however, that non-strikers who also had criminal charges
pending against them in the fiscal’s office, arising from
the same incidents whence against the criminal charges
against the strikers are involved, were readily readmitted
and were not required to secure clearances. This is an act
of discrimination practiced by the Companies in the
process of rehiring and is therefore a violation of Sec. 4(a)
(4) of the Industrial Peace Act.
 HELD
The respondent Companies did not merely discriminate
against all strikers in general since they separated the
active ROM the less active unionists on the basis of their
militancy, or lack of it, on the picket lines. Discrimination
exists where the record shows that the union activity of
the rehired strikers has been less prominent than that of
the strikers who were denied reinstatement.
WHAT IS THE
NATURE OF A
PICKET LINE ?
“The picket line is an explosive front, charged with
emotions and fierce loyalties of the union-
management dispute. It may be marked by
colorful name-calling, intimidating threats or
sporadic fights between the pickets and those
who pass the line.” Regarding the fist fight, “[t]he
picket line being the natural result of the
respondent’s unfair labor practice, Ibarra's
misconduct is at most a misdemeanor which is
not a bar to reinstatement.”
COMMITTING ANY ACT OF LIMITATION ON
VIOLENCE, COERCION OR
INTIMIDATION. THE RIGHT TO
PICKET
OBSTRUCTING THE FREE
INGRESS TO AND EGRESS
FROM THE EMPLOYERS
PREMISES, AND;

OBSTRUCT PUBLIC
THOROUGHFARES.
Book V, Rule
XXII, Section
13.

PEACEFUL PICKETING
 Workers shall have the right to peaceful picketing. No person engaged in
picketing shall commit any act of violence, coercion or intimidation or obstruct
the free ingress to or egress from the employer's premises for lawful purposes, or
obstruct public thoroughfares.

No person shall obstruct, impede or interfere with, by force, violence, coercion,

threats or intimidation, any peaceful picketing by workers during any labor
controversy or in the exercise of the right to self-organization or collective
bargaining or shall aid or abet such obstruction or interference

No employer shall use or employ any person to commit such acts nor shall any
person be employed for such purpose.
.
PICKETING AND
LIBEL LAW
Philippine Commercial and
Industrial Bank v.
Philnabank Employees
Association, 105 SCRA 314
(1981)
Presentations FACTS:

There is an action for Libel against Philnabank

Employees Association filed by PCIB as a result of
placard and signboard along PNB Building,
containing the following: “PCIB BAD ACCOUNTS
TRANSFERRED TO PNB-NIDC?”
PCIB considered the above “defamatory and
libelous per se” (for at the very least it amounts to
an act tending to cause dishonour, discredit or
contempt of a juridical person)
Philippine Commercial and
Industrial Bank v.
Philnabank Employees
Association, 105 SCRA 314
(1981)
The libelous character of those placards were denied
by defendants on the ground that those said placards
were displayed during the strike which is a fair, legal
labor strategy denouncing the lack of business
foresight, incompetence, mismanagement, arbitrary
and disputing acts of Management to heed the legal
and legitimate demands of Philnabank Employees
association, as striking Union. Also such strike was only
move with good intention and justifiable motives and
did not intend to injure any party not connected with
the strike.

The lower court ruled in favour of the Philnabank

Union, having the judge not able to discern any
libelous imputation in the allege offending words.
ISSUE

W/ N THE WORDS IN THE

PLACARDS (AS QUOTED
ABOVE) USED BY THE
PHILNABANK UNION DURING
THEIR STRIKE AGAINST
EMPLOYER PNB IS LIBELOUS.
NO
 HELD
If the matter were viewed solely from what appeared
in the placards, there is an element of likelihood in the
assertion that while it was aimed at the PNB, the way it
was worded could reflect on a stranger to the
controversy, that is the PCIB.What could at first glance
be for the most fastidious hurtful to its prestige, could if
viewed with calmness and objectivity be considered as
“lacking in libelous imputation”.

Peaceful picketing is part of the freedom of speech

guaranteed by Constitution. Labor disputes give rise to
strong emotional response. It is a fact of industrial life,
that in continuing confrontation esteem Labor and
management, it is far from likely that the language
employed would be both courteous and polite.

The judiciary in deciding suits for libel must ascertain

whether or not the alleged offending words may be
embraced by the guarantees of free press and free
speech.
CURTAILMENT
The right to picket as a means of
communicating the facts of a labor
dispute is a phase of the freedom of
speech guaranteed by the
Constitution. If peacefully carried out,
it cannot be curtailed even in the
absence of ER-EE relationship.

The wholesale condemnation of

peaceful picketing is clearly bereft of
support in law. Peaceful picketing is
embraced in freedom of expression
as declared by law and jurisprudence
Nagkaisang Manggagawa sa
Cuizon Hotel v. Libron, 124
SCRA 448 (1983)
Presentations FACTS:

This case arose from a clarificatory order

of respondent labor arbiter that stated
“[t]he consequences resulting from the
declaration of a strike as illegal carries with
it sanctions on the immediate incidents
thereto such as picketing.
ISSUE

WON PICKETING IS
ILLEGAL PER SE. NO.
 HELD
Peaceful picketing is embraced in
freedom of expression. PD 849 accorded
picketing due recognition. It is to be
understood that the peaceful picketing
authorized cannot countenance acts of
illegality.
Regulation or THE RIGHT TO PICKET MAY BE REGULATED AT
THE INSTANCE OF THIRD PARTIES OR

Restrictions, "INNOCENT BYSTANDERS" IF IT APPEARS

THAT THE INEVITABLE RESULT OF ITS

Innocent
EXERCISE IS TO CREATE AN IMPRESSION
THAT A LABOR DISPUTE WITH WHICH THEY
HAVE NO CONNECTION OR INTEREST EXISTS
Third Party BETWEEN THEM AND THE PICKETING UNION
OR CONSTITUTE AN INVASION OF THEIR

Rule and RIGHTS.236

Liabilities NOTES: - THE LEGALITY OF BANNERING MAY

DEPEND UPON THE LOCALITY IN WHICH IT
TAKES PLACES, AND THE RIGHT TO
SPEAK/PUBLISH MAY NOT BE SO USED AS TO
CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE. - THE DISPLAY OF
SIGNS MISSTATING THE FACTS IN RESPECT OF
THE LABOR DISPUTE IS NOT PERMITTED.
Liwayway Publishing Co.,
Inc. v. Permanent Concrete
Workers Union, 108 SCRA
161 (1981)

Presentations FACTS:

Union is picketing Permanent Conrete.

Liwayway is a sublessee of an adjacent
bodega but is separate and distinct
company engaged in a completely
different business. Union prevented
Liwayway from getting supplies from its
bodega. Liwayway filed this case.
ISSUE

WON THE APPELLEE IS

A THIRD PARTY OR AN
"INNOCENT
BYSTANDER" WHOSE
RIGHT HAS BEEN
INVADED.
 HELD
If peacefully carried out, picketing
cannot be curtailed even in the absence of
employer-employee relationship. However,
the right may be regulated at the instance
of third parties or "innocent-bystanders" if
it appears that the inevitable result of its
exercise is to create an impression that a
labor dispute with which they have no
connection or interest exists between
them and the picketing union or
constitute an invasion of their rights
INJUNCTION
AGAINST
PICKETING
GENERAL RULE AND EXCEPTIONS
 GENERAL RULE EXCEPTIONS
Picketing cannot be enjoined because it is a. If necessary to protect the rights of third
part of the freedom of speech. party or innocent bystander.

EXCEPTIONS EXCEPTIONS
b. If carried through the use of illegal c. If carried out through the use of violence
means. or illegal acts
Art. 278.
(B) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES. B. NO PERSON
SHALL OBSTRUCT, IMPEDE, OR INTERFERE
WITH, BY FORCE, VIOLENCE, COERCION,
THREATS OR INTIMIDATION, ANY PEACEFUL
PICKETING BY EMPLOYEES DURING ANY
LABOR CONTROVERSY OR IN THE EXERCISE
OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION OR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, OR SHALL AID OR
ABET SUCH OBSTRUCTION OR
INTERFERENCE.
Roles of Peace
Officer during
Picketing
ESCORTING ART. 278. (D) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES. D. NO PUBLIC
OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE, INCLUDING OFFICERS AND
PERSONNEL OF THE NEW ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES OR THE INTEGRATED NATIONAL POLICE,
OR ARMED PERSON, SHALL BRING IN, INTRODUCE OR
ESCORT IN ANY MANNER, ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO
SEEKS TO REPLACE STRIKERS IN ENTERING OR
LEAVING THE PREMISES OF A STRIKE AREA, OR WORK
IN PLACE OF THE STRIKERS.

THE POLICE FORCE SHALL KEEP OUT OF THE

PICKETLINES UNLESS ACTUAL VIOLENCE OR OTHER
CRIMINAL ACTS OCCUR THEREIN. BUT ANY PUBLIC
OFFICER, THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT OR THE NLRC MAY SEEK THE
ASSISTANCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO
MAINTAIN PEACE AND ORDER, PROTECT LIFE AND
PROPERTY, AND/OR ENFORCE THE LAW AND LEGAL
ORDER PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE JOIN
DOLE-PNP-PEZA GUIDELINES IN THE CONDUCT OF
PNP PERSONNEL, ECONOMIC ZONE POLICE AND
SECURITY GUARDS, COMPANY SECURITY GUARDS
AND SIMILAR PERSONNEL DURING LABOR DISPUTES.
 Arrest and Detention
of Law Violators

Art. 280. Requirement for arrest and

detention. Except on grounds of
national security and public peace or in
case of commission of a crime, no
union members or union organizers
may be arrested or detained for union
activities without previous
consultations with the Secretary of
Labor.