[Digest] Reliance Surety vs. NLRC (1991)

Reliance Surety & Insurance Co., Inc vs. NLRC (1991)

Sarmiento, J.

                                 

Facts:

·          Management of Reliance Surety & Insurance Co, Inc. re-arranged the sitting arrangement of its staff to lessen non-work related conversations, personal telephone calls and non-work related visits.  Employees who were members of the union took the changes as a means of singling them out and applying pressure on them to quit the union or to be more submissive to the company.

·          Union members refused to obey the new arrangement and even cursed and argued with management for which they were disciplined and eventually dismissed. This prompted the complaint in the NLRC against the company wherein the workers alleged unfair work practices.

·          While the complaint was hibernating [cooling off period] the employees staged a strike that did not get the majority vote of the union as required. This prompted the company to file a complaint with the NLRC because they alleged that the strike was illegal.

·          Labor arbiter and NLRC found the strike to be illegal but ruled that dismissal it too severe a punishment. The company should reinstate the employees without back-pay which they deemed punishment enough.

Doctrine:

·          The Company merely exercised its prerogative in assigning new seats for the benefit of the company and it did not in any way constitute an unfair labor practice.

·          The strike was not only illegal but it was also violent wherein the union harassed not only management but also other employees not on strike.

·          Citing Ferrer v. Almira à a violation of the cooling off period in good faith is merely a defective strike whereas in this case the violation was done in bad faith hence the strike is illegal

·          Citing Bacus v. Ople à mere finding of  ‘illegality’ attending the strike cannot be used to dismiss employees who were impressed with good faith.

·          As a general rule the sympathy of the court is with the laboring classes BUT the court must however take care to ensure that the results achieved are fair and in conformity with the rules. The employees are validly dismissed because the court held that no good faith could be found in the instant case but rather ‘plain arrogance, pride and cynicism.’