G.R. No. 121315 July 19, 1999
Lessons Applicable: Unfair Labor Practice
Laws Applicable:
FACTS:
·
Complex
Electronics Corporation was engaged in the manufacture of electronic products.
It was actually a subcontractor of electronic products where its customers gave
their job orders, sent their own materials and consigned their equipment to it.
·
The
rank and file workers of Complex were organized into a union known as the
Complex Electronics Employees Association
·
Complex
received a facsimile message from Lite-On Philippines Electronics Co.,
requiring it to lower its price by 10%.
o
Complex
informed its Lite-On personnel that such request of lowering their selling
price by 10% was not feasible as they were already incurring losses at the
present prices of their products.
o
Complex
regretfully informed the employees that it was left with no alternative but to
close down the operations of the Lite-On Line
§ retrenchment will not take place
until after 1 month
§ try to prolong the work for as
many people as possible for as long as it can
§ retrenchment pay as provided for
by law i.e. half a month for every year of service in accordance
with Article 283 of the Labor Code of Philippines.
·
Complex
filed a notice of closure of the Lite-On Line with the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) and the retrenchment of the ninety-seven (97) affected
employees.
·
Union
filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
·
In
the evening of April 6, 1992, the machinery, equipment and materials being used
for production at Complex were pulled-out from the company premises and
transferred to the premises of Ionics Circuit, Inc. (Ionics) at Cabuyao,
Laguna.
o
Fearful
that the machinery, equipment and materials would be rendered inoperative and
unproductive due to the impending strike of the workers, the customers ordered
their pull-out and transfer to Ionics.
o
Complex
was compelled to cease operations
o
Ionics
contended that it was an entity separate and distinct from Complex and had been
in existence since July 5, 1984 or eight (8) years before the labor dispute
arose at Complex. Like Complex, it was also engaged in the semi-conductor
business where the machinery, equipment and materials were consigned to them by
their customers
o
President
of Complex was also the President of Ionics, the latter denied having Qua as
their owner since he had no recorded subscription of P1,200,00.00 in Ionics as
claimed by the Union. Ionics further argued that the hiring of some displaced
workers of Complex was an exercise of management prerogatives.
·
complaint
was, thereafter, filed with the Labor Arbitration Branch of the NLRC for unfair
labor practice, illegal closure/illegal lockout, money claims for vacation
leave, sick leave, unpaid wages, 13th month pay, damages and attorney's fees.
The Union alleged that the pull-out of the machinery, equipment and materials
from the company premises, which resulted to the sudden closure of the company
was in violation of Section 3 and 8, Rule XIII, Book V of the Labor Code of the
Philippines and the existing CBA
·
Labor
Arbiter: reinstate the 531 above-listed employees to their former position; charge of slowdown
strike filed by respondent Complex against the union is hereby dismissed for
lack of merit.
·
NLRC:
pay 531 complainants equivalent to one month pay in lieu of notice and
separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service and a fraction
of six months considered as one whole year.
ISSUE: W/N
there was ULP
HELD:
NO.
·
A
"runaway shop" is defined as an industrial plant moved by its owners
from one location to another to escape union labor regulations or state laws,
but the term is also used to describe a plant removed to a new location in
order to discriminate against employees at the old plant because of their union
activities.
o It is one wherein the employer
moves its business to another location or it temporarily closes its business for
anti-union purposes
o relocation motivated by anti-union
animus rather than for business reasons
o Ionics was not set up merely for
the purpose of transferring the business of Complex. At the time the labor
dispute arose at Complex, Ionics was already existing as an independent
company.
o The Union failed to show that the
primary reason for the closure of the establishment was due to the union
activities of the employees.
o The mere fact that one or more
corporations are owned or controlled by the same or single stockholder is not a
sufficient ground for disregarding separate corporate personalities.
·
No
illegal lockout/illegal dismissal
o closure, therefore, was not
motivated by the union activities of the employees, but rather by necessity
since it can no longer engage in production without the much needed materials,
equipment and machinery.
o The determination to cease
operation is a prerogative of management that is usually not interfered with by
the State as no employer can be required to continue operating at a loss simply
to maintain the workers in employment.
·
personal
liability of Lawrence Qua- absence of malice or bad faith, a stockholder or an
officer of a corporation cannot be made personally liable for corporate
liabilities.
·
We
see no valid and cogent reason why petitioner should not be likewise sanctioned
for its failure to serve the mandatory written notice. Under the attendant
facts, we find the amount of P5,000.00, to be just and reasonable.
