Scribd
Upload
321 views3 pages

Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company V NLRC

The Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (BLTBCo) employees went on strike due to unfair labor practices and violations of their collective bargaining agreement. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ordered the striking employees to return to work but only 1,116 did initially. Another 614 employees filed for illegal dismissal. The NLRC ruled that all striking employees who did not commit illegal acts should be reinstated. BLTBCo argued the striking employees abandoned their jobs. The NLRC denied this, finding the employees' failure to meet deadlines was justified given travel times and lack of individual notice. It held the striking employees, except for union officers, should be reinstated as the general membership merely followed

Uploaded by

jpeg
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
321 views3 pages

Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company V NLRC

The Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (BLTBCo) employees went on strike due to unfair labor practices and violations of their collective bargaining agreement. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ordered the striking employees to return to work but only 1,116 did initially. Another 614 employees filed for illegal dismissal. The NLRC ruled that all striking employees who did not commit illegal acts should be reinstated. BLTBCo argued the striking employees abandoned their jobs. The NLRC denied this, finding the employees' failure to meet deadlines was justified given travel times and lack of individual notice. It held the striking employees, except for union officers, should be reinstated as the general membership merely followed

Uploaded by

jpeg
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY V NLRC

Facts:
Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTB Co. NAFLU (TLM-BLTB-NAFLU), an affiliate
of the National Federation of Labor Unions. (NAFLU), filed a Notice of Strike against the
Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company on the grounds of unfair labor practice and
violation of the CBA.
The reaction of BLTBCO was to ask the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over
the dispute or to certify it to the National Labor Relations Commission for compulsory
arbitration. The petitioner also moved to dismiss the notice of strike on August 3, 1988.
The officers and members of TLM-BLTBCo-NAFLU went on strike and maintained
picket lines blocking the premises of BLTBCo's terminals.
The NLRC issued an en banc resolution ordering the striking employees to lift their
picket and to remove all obstructions and barricades. All striking employees on payroll
as of May 23, 1988, were required to return to work. BLTBCo was directed to accept
them back to work within 5 days under the same terms and conditions prevailing before
the strike. 
Of the some 1,730 BLTBCo employees who went on strike, only 1,116 reported back for
work. Seventeen others were later re-admitted. Subsequently, about 614 employees,
including those who were allegedly dismissed for causes other than the strike, filed
individual complaints for illegal dismissal. Their common ground was that they were
refused admission when they reported back for work.
The NLRC issued a resolution directing likewise the reinstatement of all striking
employees of BLTBCo who have not committed illegal acts.On September 16, 1991, the
NLRC issued the another resolution denying BLTBCo.’s motion for reconsideration and
prayer for a temporary restraining order. BLTBCo is also directed to reinstate the union
members specifically named in the questioned resolution and all those striking
employees who have not committed illegal acts.
ISSUE: Whether or not the striking employees should be reinstated
HELD:
Yes. Only the officers of the union deserved to be penalized with the loss of their
employment status. The leaders of the union are the moving force in the declaration of
the strike and the Rank-in-file employees merely followed. Likewise, viewed in the light
of Article 264, paragraph (e), those who participated in the commission of illegal acts
who stood charged criminally thereof in court must be penalized. BLTBCo will have to
agree with Us that while the general membership of TLM-NAFLU may have joined the
strike at its inception, We are convinced that they returned to work on September 19,
1988 or, immediately thereafter. And, We are not swayed that these employees have
abandoned their job just because they reported late or, beyond the period required by
the Commission and by BLTBCo. The circumstances of time and place of employment
and the residences of the employees as well as the lack of individual notice to them are
reasons enough to justify their failure to beat the deadline.
The right to strike is one of the rights recognized and guaranteed by the Constitution as
an instrument of labor for its protection against exploitation by management. By virtue of
this right, the workers are able to press their demands for better terms of employment
with more energy and persuasiveness, poising the threat to strike as their reaction to
the employer's intransigence. The strike is indeed a powerful weapon of the working
class. But precisely because of this, it must be handled carefully, like a sensitive
explosive, lest it blow up in the workers' own hands. Thus, it must be declared only after
the most thoughtful consultation among them, conducted in the only way allowed, that
is, peacefully, and in every case conformably to reasonable regulation. Any violation of
the legal requirements and strictures, such as a defiance of a return-to-work order in
industries affected with public interest, will render the strike illegal, to the detriment of
the very workers it is supposed to protect.
Even war must be lawfully waged. A labor dispute demands no less observance of the
rules, for the benefit of all concerned.

You might also like