Visayan Bicycle Manufacturing Co., Inc. vs. National Labor Union

An employer commits unfair labor practice when the true and basic inspiration for dismissing employees is their union affiliations or activities, even if the employer assigns a company-rule violation as the reason, especially where the employer itself contrived the alleged violation; and the CIR's standing no-extension policy for memoranda supporting reconsideration is not an abuse of discretion.

Visayan Bicycle Manufacturing Co., Inc. and VIBEMWU, the union of its workers, were parties to a collective bargaining agreement that provided for union security, checkoff, wage increases, fifteen days vacation leave, and fifteen days sick leave. The Industrial Peace Act, Republic Act 875, supplies the statutory prohibition on employer unfair labor practices at issue.

On November 3, 1958, workers in the Visayan Bicycle Manufacturing Co., Inc. formed the Visayan Bicycle Employees and Workers Union (VIBEMWU), with Pedro Evangelista as president. On November 14, 1958, VIBEMWU and the company signed a collective bargaining agreement providing for union security, checkoff, wage increases, fifteen days vacation leave, and fifteen days sick leave. On February 21, 1959, Evangelista was again elected president for 1959, and Felicisimo Rodiel was elected board member. For 1960, on December 12, 1959, VIBEMWU re-elected Evangelista president and elected Fulgencio Besana and Rodiel as vice-president and secretary, respectively.

On February 27, 1960, through its executive board headed by Besana, acting as president, VIBEMWU affiliated with the National Labor Union (NLU). Subsequently, on March 4, 1960, the Constitution and By-laws of VIBEMWU were amended. On March 9, 1960, another election was held and Besana was chosen president, replacing Evangelista. On March 17, 1960, the national secretary of NLU, by letter, informed the company of VIBEMWU's affiliation to NLU and demanded enforcement of the collective bargaining agreement. The company did not accede to the demand. Consequently, on April 5, 1960, VIBEMWU filed a notice to strike. The Department of Labor's Conciliation Service held several hearings on the union's demands and strike notice, but the company still refused.

On April 25, 1960, the company dismissed Besana and Rodiel after they figured, on the same day, in a fight with two other employees within the premises and during working hours. Alleging unfair labor practice, NLU, on behalf of VIBEMWU as well as Besana and Rodiel, filed on May 6, 1960 a complaint against the company in the Court of Industrial Relations. The company answered on May 23, 1960, stating that the dismissal of Besana and Rodiel was due to violation of a company rule that penalizes "Inciting or provoking a fight or fighting during working hours or on company premises".

The record showed that on April 25, 1960, Besana and Rodiel were provoked by Saturnino Reyes and Silvestre Pacia into a pre-arranged fight pursuant to a strategy of the company designed to provide an apparently lawful cause for their dismissal. Reyes and Pacia were hired only within that week, on April 19, 1960 and April 18, 1960, respectively. Besana and Rodiel were not shown to have previously figured in similar incidents or to have violated company rules and regulations in their many years with the company; Besana had been employed since October 4, 1956, and Rodiel since November 1957.

The company did not investigate the incident, and its manager, Co Hing, admitted that Besana was dismissed because he was a "hard-headed leader of the union". It was this manager who had warned VIBEMWU's officers responsible for the affiliation that if they would not withdraw VIBEMWU from the NLU, he would take "steps in order to dismiss them from work." The CIR found these facts supported by substantial evidence.

• Dismissal for Violation of Company Rule: The company maintained that the dismissal of Besana and Rodiel was due to violation of a company rule that penalizes "Inciting or provoking a fight or fighting during working hours or on company premises".

• Denial of Extension: Whether the CIR abused its discretion in denying the motion for extension of time to file a memorandum in support of the motion for reconsideration.
• Unfair Labor Practice: Whether the company's dismissal of Besana and Rodiel constituted unfair labor practice.

• Denial of Extension: No. The denial of a motion to extend the 10-day period to file arguments in support of a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to a standing rule against such extension, does not constitute abuse of discretion.
• Unfair Labor Practice: Yes. The dismissal was in reality due to union activities, not violation of the company rule; the alleged violation was brought about by the company itself through recently hired employees who provoked the fight, making it unfair labor practice under Section 4(a)(1) and (4) of Republic Act 875.

• Denial of Extension: The SC treated the first issue as settled. It ruled that the denial by the CIR of a motion to extend the 10-day period to file arguments in support of a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to its standing rule against such extension, does not constitute abuse of discretion. It cited Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc. vs. CIR and Manila Metal Caps and Tin Cans Manufacturing Co. vs. CIR as support. The company's motion for reconsideration contained no argument and reserved the right to file a supporting memorandum within ten days from March 18, 1962; its March 27, 1962 motion sought a 15-day extension, which the CIR en banc denied on March 28, 1962, and the motion for reconsideration was denied on April 6, 1962. The SC found no abuse of discretion.

• Unfair Labor Practice: The record showed that on April 25, 1960, Besana and Rodiel were provoked by Saturnino Reyes and Silvestre Pacia into a pre-arranged fight pursuant to a company strategy to provide an apparently lawful cause for dismissal; Reyes and Pacia were hired only within that week. Besana and Rodiel had no prior similar incidents or violations in their many years with the company. The company did not investigate, and manager Co Hing admitted Besana was dismissed because he was a "hard-headed leader of the union"; Co Hing had warned VIBEMWU officers responsible for the affiliation that if they did not withdraw VIBEMWU from NLU, he would take "steps in order to dismiss them from work." These CIR findings were supported by substantial evidence. The SC held there was no reason to alter the conclusion that they were in reality dismissed because of union activities, not violation of the company rule. Moreover, the alleged violation was brought about by the company itself through the recent employment of Reyes and Pacia, who provoked the fight, so it could not be a ground to punish the employees. The dismissal was therefore discriminatory and constituted unfair labor practice under Section 4(a)(1) and (4) of Republic Act 875. The SC quoted Rothenberg: if the true and basic inspiration for the employer's act is derived from the employee's union affiliations or activities, the assignment by the employer of another reason, whatever its semblance of validity, is unavailing. The SC also characterized the appeal as an obvious attempt to delay and carry on a pretense, given the bad faith attending the company's deliberate and calculated act of unfair labor practice.

• Pretextual Dismissal as Unfair Labor Practice — An employer commits unfair labor practice when the true and basic inspiration for dismissing employees is their union affiliations or activities, even if the employer assigns another reason with a semblance of validity. The SC applied this where the company contrived a fight through recently hired employees and its manager admitted Besana was dismissed as a "hard-headed leader of the union."
• Contrived Company-Rule Violation — A violation of company rules brought about by the employer itself cannot be regarded as a ground to punish employees. The SC held that the fight was pre-arranged by company hires, so the alleged violation of the rule against fighting could not justify the dismissal.
• No Abuse of Discretion in Denying Extension Under No-Extension Policy — Denial of a motion to extend the 10-day period to file arguments in support of a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to a standing rule against such extension, does not constitute abuse of discretion. The SC applied this to the company's motion for a 15-day extension.
• Substantial Evidence Supports CIR Findings — The CIR's findings, when supported by substantial evidence, will not be altered. The SC affirmed the finding that Besana and Rodiel were dismissed for union activities.

• "The denial by the Court of Industrial Relations of a motion to extend the 10-day period to file arguments in support of a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to its standing rule against such extension, does not constitute abuse of discretion." — This states the SC's rule on the first issue: the CIR's no-extension policy did not amount to abuse of discretion.
• "No reason obtains to alter the conclusion that Besana and Rodiel were in reality dismissed because of their union activities and not because of their violation of a company rule against fights in the premises or during working hours." — This is the SC's core finding that the dismissal was motivated by union activities, not the alleged company-rule violation.
• "Since the only reason or basis for Besana and Rodiel's dismissal was in fact their actuation as officers of VIBEMWU, the dismissal is clearly discriminatory." — This ties the dismissal to discrimination because the only basis was the employees' actuation as VIBEMWU officers.

• Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc. vs. CIR, L-16682, July 26, 1963 — Cited as precedent for the rule that denial of a motion to extend the 10-day period to file arguments in support of a motion for reconsideration, under a standing no-extension policy, is not abuse of discretion.
• Manila Metal Caps and Tin Cans Manufacturing Co. vs. CIR, L-17579, July 31, 1963 — Cited for the same rule.

• Section 4(a)(1), Republic Act 875 — Defines unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 3. Applied because the dismissal of Besana and Rodiel for union activities interfered with their right to self-organization.
• Section 4(a)(4), Republic Act 875 — Defines unfair labor practice to discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. Applied because the dismissal was discriminatory and based on union activities.
• Section 3, Republic Act 875 — Guarantees employees' right to self-organization and to form, join or assist labor organizations of their own choosing. Applied as the right protected by Section 4(a)(1).