Interphil Laboratories Employees Union, et.al. v. Interphil Laboratories, Inc., and The Sec.
Sec. of Labor assumed jurisdiction and the company was ordered to
Sec. of Labor
G.R. No. 142824. 19 December 2001. Justice Kapunan
Doctrine: Where the employees assented by practice to an arrangement of a
continuous 24-hour, two-shift work daily schedule in spite of the eight-hour
schedule provided for in their CBA, they cannot now be heard to claim that the
overtime boycott is justified because they were not obliged to work beyond eight
hours.
FACTS:
Interphil Lab Employees Union is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of
the rank-and-file employees of Interphil Lab (company engaged in
manufacturing and packaging pharmaceutical products). They had a CBA from
1990-1993. Nearing the expiry, the officers of the union asked Salazar, the VP
for HR, many times whether they were amenable to make a new CBA. Salazar
declared that the company could not make a decision at the moment.
The very next day after that declaration, workers having a 2 straight 12-hour
shifts, decided that after working 8 hours per shift company conducted an
overtime boycott.
Upon inquiry by Salazar for the boycott, he was told to ask the union officers.
At a meeting, Gonzales, a union director, told Salazar that the employees
would only return to their normal work schedule if the company would agree
to their demands as to the effectivity and duration of the new CBA. Salazar
declared that such agreement could only be conducted through formal
negotiations. Dissatisfied, workers proceeded with the strike.
The employees also engaged in a work slowdown campaign which delayed
the production of the company. Then, the company submitted its CBA
proposal, and the union its counter-proposal.
The company filed with the NLRC a petition to declare illegal petitioner
unions overtime boycott and work slowdown, which the company claimed to
amount to illegal strike.
At mediation in the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, the parties
failed to arrive to an agreement.
The union filed with the NCMB a Notice of Strike citing unfair labor practice
they did eventually stage a strike.
accept the striking workers, while the union was directed to comply with the
return-to-work orders.
Eventually, in the hearing in the LA, which was recommended to the Sec. of
Labor, resulted in an Order stating: (1) The OT Boycott and Work Slowdown
were declared as illegal strike; (2) Declared the union officers to have lost
their employment; and (3) Found the company guilty of unfair labor practice
for violating the then existing CBA. MR denied, CA dismissed appeal of the
union.
Union is contending that the CBA stated working hours to be 8 hours, and
that the regular working hours is 7:30am-4:30pm. But there is a however
clause which allows the company to change the prevailing work time at its
discretion.
ISSUE:
WON the working hours contained in the CBA should be the controlling evidence
of the work hours.
HELD:
No, petition denied. In resolving the case, the Supreme Court held that it is
evident that the working hours may be changed, at the discretion of the
company, should such change be necessary for its operations, and that the
employees shall observe such rules as have been laid down by the company.
In the case at bar, the LA found that the company had to adopt a continuous 24-
hour work daily schedule by reason of the nature of its business and the demands
of the clients. It was established that the employees adhered to the said work
schedule since 1988. The employees are deemed to have waived the 8-hour
schedule since they followed, without any question or complaint, the 2-shift
schedule while their CBA was still in force and even prior thereto. The 2-shift
schedule effectively changed the working hours stipulated in the CBA. As the
employees assented by practice to this arrangement, they cannot now be heard
to claim that the OT boycott is justified because they were not obliged to work
beyond the 8 hours.