Progressive Worker's Union vs. Aguas

G.R. No. L-59711-12

May 29, 1987

FACTS:

Petitioner Progressive Workers' Union is the local chapter of the Federation of Free Workers [FFW] in respondent company, Solid Mills, Inc. In the collective bargaining agreement [CBA] entered into by and between Solid Mills, Inc. and the FFW as the certified bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees, respondent company agreed to grant across-the-board wage increases to covered bargaining unit employees.

Respondent company implemented the CBA stipulation by giving the union members a retroactive pay for the first year wage increase, without further including wage increase into the basic wage rate of the rank-and-file employees. Contending that the wage increase for a particular period should be included in the basic wage rate, the individual petitioners, presented a grievance to respondent company demanding strict and faithful compliance with said CBA provision. Grievance meetings thereafter held between the representatives of the Union and the respondent company proved to be unavailing. Hence, the Union filed with the Conciliation Division, Bureau of Labor Relations, Ministry of Labor & Employment [MOLE], Manila, a notice of strike for unfair labor practice, violation of CBA, violation of SS law, job evaluation and failure to restate work week.

The union went on strike and on the same day, respondent company filed with the NLRC, MOLE, petitions praying in the main that the strike staged by the union be declared illegal and the participating officers and members thereof be declared to have lost their employment status. Respondent company likewise prayed for a preliminary injunction/restraining order commanding the union, its members, agents, representatives and sympathizers to lift their picket lines and allow free and unobstructed ingress to and egress from the company and to refrain from committing coercion, threats and other illegal acts.

The union filed a motion to dismiss the complaints on the ground that under B.P. 130, the labor arbiter has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaints or the nature of the actions.

ISSUES:

WON the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition and complaint or the nature of action or suit filed by the petitioners.

HELD:

The Labor Arbiter have jurisdiction over the case. Declaring a strike or lockout to be illegal requires the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial authority, which in this instance is located in the National Labor Relations Commission. Under Article 217 of the labor Code, as amended, Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over, among other disputes, "all other claims arising from employer- employee relations," and the Commission has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters. This statement of jurisdiction is intended to cover all disputes between employers and employees arising from their relationship as such, including those involving the legality of concerted actions.