Fadriquelan vs. Monterey

Fadriquelan vs. Monterey

GR 178409, June 8, 2011

Facts:

The negotiations for the CBA between the Union and the Company reached a deadlock and led to the filing of the Union for a notice of strike. After the holding of a strike was enjoined by the DOLE, the Union filed a second notice of strike, alleging that the Company committed unfair labor practice. The Company sent first and second notices to the Union officers for intentional acts of slowdown and to inform them of their termination from work, respectively. The third notice of strike filed by the Union alleged that the Company had engaged in union busting and illegal dismissal of Union officers.

Issue:

Whether the dismissal of all 17 Union officers was justified

Held: No, it was not.

A distinction exists between the ordinary workers’ liability for illegal strike and that of the union officers who participated in it. The ordinary worker cannot be terminated for merely participating in the strike. There must be proof that he committed illegal acts during its conduct. On the other hand, a union officer can be terminated upon mere proof that he knowingly participated in the illegal strike.

But, the participation of the union officers has to be properly established. The CA held that the Company illegally terminated some union officers, there being no substantial evidence that would connect them to the slowdown.

In termination cases, the dismissed employee is not required to prove his innocence of the charges against him. The burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the employee’s dismissal was for just cause. The employer’s failure to do so means that the dismissal was not justified.¹⁶ Here, the company failed to show that all 17 union officers deserved to be dismissed.