Executive labor arbiter Violeta Ortiz-Bantug, in her 25-page decision, said the strike was conducted without the majority approval of the union members, as she also dismissed their complaint of unfair labor practices against the hotel, for lack of merit.
"It has been shown that the subject strike was not based on legal ground since we did not find any acts of unfair labor practice on the part of the hotel," said Bantug.
The NLRC found out that there were only nine hotel workers who actually joined the strike because those who voted, on October 9, 2003 to hold the strike, resigned a year after or before the strike materialized.
Bantug also noted, based on pictures presented, how the strikers harassed and intimidated hotel guests and threatened employees from entering the hotel. Then, despite the issuance of a temporary restraining order against the strikers, they still went on with their illegal activity.
The strike caused the hotel to lose substantial revenues, especially when reservations and bookings were cancelled because of it, said the NLRC.
The NLRC further declared union president Yolito Banga to have lost his employment status, after it was found out that he was the only employee left joining the strike of the union.
The NLRC finally ordered Associated Labor Union-Trade Union Congress of the Philippines, and the Cebu Holiday Plaza Inc. Employees Union-ALU-TUCP, Banga and other strikers named as John Does, to pay the hotel P900,000 in nominal damages, P100,000 in exemplary damages, and P100,000 in attorney's fees.
"There was no refusal to bargain collectively by the hotel that would constitute unfair labor practice on its part," the decision of the NLRC dated October 24 read.
The strike started last May 20 when some hotel employees and non-employees, who were members of the labor unions, picketed in front of the hotel building demanding the management to sign their collective bargaining agreement.
The unions also filed a complaint at the NLRC alleging that the hotel failed to sign the CBA, and exercised unfair labor practices. The management, for its part, also filed a petition at the NLRC against the strikers for being a nuisance and threat to the business.
The management has a different version on the case from that of the union. On January 20, 2004, the union submitted its CBA proposal to the hotel its proposal and, nine days after, the later gave its counterproposals, resulting to a series of negotiation on the matter.
Last January 7, the hotel conceded to the union's position of changing some contested provisions of the CBA. The National Conciliation and Mediation Board then prepared a matrix of the CBA, containing all the proposals from both sides, preparatory for the final documentation.
But while negotiations were still ongoing, some employees resigned and withdrew their union membership, creating internal and intra-union problems.
As such, the hotel alleged that the union was provoked to impose a very stringent "close-shop" provision in the CBA with the intention to use it against the workers who resigned from the union.
The hotel evaded involvement in the intra-union issue but this caused the union to withdraw from CBA negotiations and abandon NCMB proceedings.
When the strike was held in May, however, the hotel noted the presence of some unidentified people who claimed to be union members. It also claimed that nine hotel employees harassed guests trying to enter the establishment.
Later on, only one of the nine employee-union members was left in the strike, the hotel said. But the union complained that the hotel harassed union members to withdraw from the union otherwise their employment would be terminated.
However, the NLRC said the union failed to prove who was from the management allegedly coercing or harassing employees. - Liv G. Campo