VI. On the day that the Union could validly declare a strike, the Secretary of Labor issued an order assuming jurisdiction over the dispute and enjoining the strike, or if one has commenced, ordering the striking workers to immediately return to work. The return-to-work order required the employees to return to work within twenty-four hours and was served at 8 a.m. of the day the strike was to start. The order at the same time directed the Company to accept all employees under the same terms and conditions of employment prior to the work stoppage. The Union members did not return to work on the day the Secretary's assumption order was served nor on the next day; instead, they held a continuing protest rally against the company's alleged unfair labor practices. Because of the accompanying picket, some of the employees who wanted to return to work failed to do so. On the 3rd day, the workers reported for work, claiming that they do so in compliance with the Secretary's return-to-work order that binds them as well as the Company. The Company, however, refused to admit them back sionce they had violated the Secretary's return-to-work order and are now considered to have lost their employment status. The Union officers and members filed a complaint for illegal dismissal arguing that there was no strike but a protest rally which is a valid exercise of the workers constitutional right to peaceable assembly and freemdom of expression. Hence, there was no basis for the termination of their employment. You are the Labor Arbiter to whom the case was raffled. Decide, ruling on the following issues: Was there a strike? (4%) Were the employees simply exercising their constitutional right to petition for redness of their grievances? (3%) What are the consequences, if any, of the acts of the employees? (3%)