When Can Philippine Employers Dismiss Striking Workers? Illegal Strikes Explained

The right to strike is a constitutionally protected right of Filipino workers, but it is not absolute. The Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 150437) clarifies when a strike becomes illegal and when employers may validly dismiss workers who participate in it. The case is a practical guide for both employers and employees on the boundaries of lawful concerted action.

The Facts of the Case

In March 1998, employees of Sukhothai Restaurant organized a union affiliated with the Philippine Labor Alliance Council. In December 1998, the union filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) on grounds of unfair labor practice, specifically harassment and union busting.

On January 21, 1999, the employer and the union signed a Submission Agreement, agreeing to submit the unfair labor practice issue to voluntary arbitration to prevent a strike. During the pendency of these arbitration proceedings, the employer dismissed two union members. On June 24, 1999, union members staged a "wildcat strike." The strike continued for three days, accompanied by reports of intimidation, threats, and obstruction of customers and non-striking employees.

The employer filed a complaint declaring the strike illegal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the employer, but the NLRC and Court of Appeals reversed, finding the strike justified. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate rulings and reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision.

The Issue

The central question was whether the strike staged in June 1999 was illegal, and whether the workers who participated could be validly terminated.

The Ruling: The Strike Was Illegal

The Supreme Court held that the strike was illegal for two independent reasons.

First, the strike violated the prohibition on strikes during pending arbitration. The Labor Code prohibits the declaration of a strike during the pendency of cases involving the same grounds for the strike. Here, the union had agreed to submit the unfair labor practice issues to voluntary arbitration. The June 1999 strike involved the same grounds—alleged unfair labor practices and dismissals connected to the arbitration case. Once jurisdiction over a labor dispute has been properly acquired by a competent authority, that jurisdiction should not be interfered with by the coercive process of a strike.

The Court noted that the dismissed employees had alternative remedies: they could have raised the dismissals in the pending arbitration, filed illegal dismissal cases, or sought to terminate the arbitration and complete the mandatory procedure for a lawful strike. Instead, they resorted to a drastic and unlawful measure.

Second, the union failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements. Even assuming the December 1998 notice and strike vote could apply, the Court clarified that the requirements for a valid strike are strict. Under the Labor Code, a strike requires: (1) a notice of strike, (2) a strike vote approved by majority of union members, and (3) submission of the results to the Department at least seven days before the intended strike.

The Court addressed the argument that union busting dispenses with these requirements. While the Labor Code provides that the 15-day cooling-off period does not apply in cases of union busting, the implementing rules clarify that the other requirements—notice, strike vote, and the seven-day reporting period—cannot be dispensed with. The exact provision of the Labor Code governing strikes is not available in the ASG law library, but the Supreme Court's ruling in this case clearly applies these requirements.

Third, the strike was attended by widespread illegal acts. Even a lawful strike becomes illegal if the means employed are illegal. The evidence showed strikers intimidated customers, shouted threats, used abusive language, physically blocked non-strikers, and even shouted "Granada!" (grenade) to cause panic. These acts violate the Labor Code's prohibition on violence, coercion, intimidation, and obstruction of free ingress and egress.

Who Can Be Dismissed?

The Labor Code makes a critical distinction between union officers and ordinary workers:

• Union officers who knowingly participate in an illegal strike may be dismissed.
• Ordinary workers cannot be dismissed for mere participation in an illegal strike; there must be proof they committed illegal acts during the strike.

In this case, the Court found that the six union officers knowingly participated in the illegal strike and committed illegal acts. The 24 ordinary members committed illegal acts such as intimidation, harassment, and obstruction. All were validly terminated.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required; substantial evidence suffices. Liability is determined on an individual basis, and each striker must be identified.

Practical Takeaways

• A strike during pending arbitration is illegal. Once a dispute is submitted to voluntary arbitration, workers cannot strike over the same grounds.
• Procedural requirements are mandatory. Even in union busting cases, the notice of strike, strike vote, and seven-day reporting period cannot be waived—only the 15-day cooling-off period may be dispensed with.
• Illegal acts make any strike illegal. Violence, intimidation, threats, and obstruction of ingress or egress are prohibited acts that invalidate even an otherwise lawful strike.
• Union officers face stricter liability. They may be dismissed for knowingly participating in an illegal strike, while ordinary workers must have committed illegal acts.
• Documentation matters. Employers should document specific acts of individual strikers, as liability is determined on an individual basis.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.