Endnotes:
1. The Court of Industrial Relations based its order of reinstatement on the finding that Tabisola was dismissed "for no cause, jur or otherwise", so he was awarded full back pay and that Monteclaro was discharged because of his unruly behavior on February 9, 1957 (he resented the refusal by Alan A. Bakewell, company general superintendent, of his request for "cash advance") which disturbed work in the company's accounting office – a violation of office rules and regulations, which the court did not deem sufficiently grave to warrant dismissal.
2. G.R. No. L-15863, July 31, 1961. The issue in this case, as stated by the respondents therein, was: In an unfair labor practice proceeding under Republic Act 875 charging an employer with discriminatory dismissal of an employee because of union activity which results in the dismissal of the case in view of a finding that the employer did not dismiss the employee for union activity, may the Court of Industrial Relations order the reinstatement with back pay of the dismissed employee pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 19 of Commonwealth Act 103, as amended, on the ground that the dismissal was not justified?; or, in the words of this Court: In a proceeding for the trial of charges of unfair labor practice, prosecuted in accordance with Section 5 of Republic Act No. 875, can the court grant a remedy such as reinstatement and back pay, even if the complaint is to be dismissed because the unfair labor practice alleged to have been committed has not been proved or found to exist? See also Cagalawan v. Customs Canteen, G.R. No. L-16031, October 31, 1961.
3. Section 5 (c), Republic Act 875.
4. Section 5 (c), Republic Act 875. (See note 2.)
5. Under Commonwealth Act No. 103, the power of arbitration and conciliation may be exercised only if an industrial dispute is causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout and the number of employees or laborers involved exceeds 30 (Sec. 4, Republic Act No. 103). Once the court acquires jurisdiction and the case is pending before the court, the suspension, lay-off or dismissal of employees or laborers may not be made without the court's approval (Sec. 19 Ibid). After trial, the court is granted power to decide the nature and form of remedy, or award that it may grant, which remedy, may include reinstatement, suspension or otherwise (Sec. 13, Ibid). The only other instance where the court may order reinstatement of an employee is where the discharge of an employee is caused by his testifying or intention to testify in an investigation before it (Sec. 21, Ibid). National Labor Union v. Insular-Yebana Tobacco Corporation, supra.
6. A consideration of the entire law on the matter clearly discloses the intention of the lawmaker to consider acts which are alleged to constitute unfair labor practices as violations of the law or offenses, to be prosecuted in the same manner as a criminal offense. The reason for this provision is that the commission of an unfair labor practice is an offense against a public right or interest and should be prosecuted in the same manner as a public offense. (National Labor Union v. Insular-Yebana Tobacco Corporation, supra.) .
7. Sec. 5 (c), Republic Act 875.
8. National Labor Union v. Insular-Yebana Tobacco Corporation, supra.