Saturday, November 24, 2007 Back wages in strike By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
IN the early morning of Nov. 29, 1997, respondent Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union suddenly went on strike. On Jan. 28, 1998, petitioner Philippine Diamond Hotel and Resort Inc. filed a petition to declare the strike illegal.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission declaring the strike illegal but ordered the reinstatement with back wages of union members. Was the grant of back wages justified?
Ruling: No.
When in case of strikes, and according to the Court of Industrial Relations, even if the strike is legal, strikers may not collect their wages during the days they did not go to work, for the same reasons if not more, laborers who voluntarily absent themselves from work to attend the hearing of a case in which they seek to prove and establish their demands against the company, the legality and propriety of which demands is not yet known, should lose their pay during the period of such absence from work.
The age-old rule governing the relation between labor and capital or management and employee is that of a “fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor.” If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay, unless of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out, dismissed or suspended. It is hardly fair or just for an employee or laborer to fight or litigate against his employer on the employer’s time.
This Court must thus hearken to its policy that “when employees voluntarily go on strike, even if in protest against unfair labor practices,” no back wages during the strike is awarded. (Philippine Diamond Hotel & Resort Inc. versus Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union, G.R. No. 158075, June 30, 2006, quoting J.P. Heilbronn Co. versus National Labor Union, 92 Phil. 575, 577-578 (1953).
