Was it legal for the police to intervene in the strike?

The strike of the farm workers’ union (United Luisita Workers’ Union or ULWU) on November 6, 2004 at Gate 1 of the sugar mill was not covered by the assumption of jurisdiction of the Labor secretary. The case was with the National Labor Relations Commission, according to the statement of Dr. Carol Pagaduan-Araullo of the Health Alliance for Democracy at the February 3, 2005 Senate hearing on the Luisita massacre. “If one will be strict about legality, the four dispersal operations ordered by DOLE (Department of Labor and Employment) at Gate 1 of the sugar mill, where the ULWU members were primarily manning the picket lines, is patently illegal since (Labor) Secretary Sto. Tomas’ “AJ" does not cover the ULWU strike," Araullo said. Police required to respect pickets Araullo added that the police interfered with the labor dispute on November 6 and 7 without any return-to-work order or deputization from the DOLE, and violated the rule that police should keep themselves at least 50 meters away from picket lines. The police attacked the strikers with tear gas, water cannons, and truncheons, forcing the strikers to defend themselves with sticks and stones, Araullo said. Article 264, Paragraph D of the Labor Code says, “The police force shall keep out of the picket lines unless actual violence or other criminal acts occur therein: Provided, That nothing herein shall be interpreted to prevent any public officer from taking any measure necessary to maintain peace and order, protect life and property, and/or enforce the law and legal order." Ingress-egress reason given by police After Labor Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas issued an Assumption of Jurisdiction on November 10, the police were asked by Labor Undersecretary Imson to go to Luisita. The reason given was to ensure ingress and egress from the company premises. But, Araullo noted, ingress and egress were actually not a problem. Gates 3 and 6 were open, Araullo said, and that was how the military were able to bring in two armored personnel carriers and four firetrucks inside the premises. Requirements of a strike The DOLE, on the other hand, in a resolution issued on January 2005, said the requirements of a valid strike were not followed. It cited a Supreme Court ruling in Pinero v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 149610 dated August 20, 2004, which stated that "the requisites for a valid strike are as follows: (a) a notice of strike filed with the DOLE thirty days before the intended date thereof or fifteen days in case of unfair labor practice; (b) strike vote approved by a majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for that purpose; (c) notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at least seven days before the intended strike." The DOLE said the sugar mill workers’ union (Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor Union or CATLU) only filed a notice of strike but did not fulfill the other requirements. However, Article 263, Paragraph C of the Labor Code says, “In case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting, where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately." The DOLE’s resolution covered only the CATLU, not the ULWU. ULWU had gone on strike for union busting. Lawyers assisting the workers lamented the DOLE’s use of procedural minutiae to divert attention from the legitimate grievances of the workers, which had caused the strike in the first place. -GMANews.tv