This is a case between the University of San Agustin Employees Union-FFW (UNION) and The University of San Agustin (UNIV).
Sometime on 2000, the parties agreed on a 5-year CBA, the economic provisions of which are effective for 3 years only. After the lapse of 3 years, the parties negotiated on the economic provisions but did not agree on the terms during the remaining 2 years of the CBA and beyond.
Since the parties did not agree on the computation of tuition incremental proceeds (TIP) which shall be the basis for the increase of salaries, they underwent a preventive mediation proceedings at the NCMB.
Still unresolved, the Union declared a bargaining deadlock and thereafter filed a Notice of Strike at the NCMB, which was expectedly opposed by the Univ through a Motion to Strike-out Notice of Strike and Refer the Dispute to Voluntary Arbitration, since the CBA contained a "no-strike, no-lockout" provision, and a grievance machinery for settling disputes, including a voluntary arbitration mechanism should the grievance machinery fail to settle the dispute. The NCMB, however, failed to resolved the Univ's Motion
Thereafter, both parties made a joint request for the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) to assume jurisdiction over the dispute.
On September 18, 2003, he SOLE assumed jurisdication, and with such assumption of jurisdiction, any strike or lockout was strictly enjoined.
The day after the SOLE assumed jurisdiction, and on the same day that the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order (AJO) was supposedly served to both parties, the Union staged a strike. Union members refused to receive a copy of the AJO assailing that only the Union President is authorized to receive the same. The Union filed a Petition Declare Illegal Strike and Loss of Employment Status of the striking employees, which Petition was filed at the NLRC. Such Petition was later on consolidated with the case pending before the SOLE, at the request of the Univ.
The SOLE rendered a Decision resolving the various economic issues over which the parties had a deadlock in the collective bargaining, and likewise dismissed the Petition to Declare Illegal Strike.
The University elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals after its Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the SOLE.
The Court of Appeals partially granted the Petition. It declared the strike as illegal, but affirmed the SOLE's decision regarding the economic issues.
Both the Univ and the Union filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration.
Basing on the CA's decision, on April 7, 2005, the Univ served the striking employees with their notices for termination and concurrently, the Union filed with the NCMB a second notice of strike, this time on ground of alleged union busting.
On April 22, 2005, the parties again took initial steps to negotiate the new CBA but said attempts proved futile. Hence, on April 25, 2005, the Union went on strike. In reaction, the University notified the Union that it was pulling out of the negotiations because of the strike.
On August 23, 2005, the CA, acting on the parties' respective motions for reconsideration, promulgated the herein challenged Partially Amended Decision. Finding merit in the respondent University's motion for partial reconsideration, the CA ruled that the SOLE abused its discretion in resolving the economic issues on the ground that said issues were proper subject of the grievance machinery as embodied in the parties' CBA. Consequently, the CA directed the parties to refer the economic issues of the CBA to voluntary arbitration. The CA, however, stood firm in its finding that the strike conducted by the petitioner Union was illegal and its officers were deemed to have lost their employment status.
Thus, the Union and its dismissed officers file this Petition to the Supreme Court, on the following issues:
- Whether or not the strike was illegal and the Union Officers deemed to have lost their employment status on their failure to return to work immediately upon the service of AJO issued by the SOLE.
- Whether or not the economic provisions of the CBA should be referred to Voluntary Arbitration.
On the first issue, the SC ruled that ART. 263 of the Labor Code provides: ."..Such assumption or certification (of the SOLE) shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout." The phrase "immediately return to work" indicates an almost instantaneous or automatic compliance for a striker to return to work once an AJO has been duly served. Therefore, the act of the striking employees is violative of the foregoing provision.
On the second issue, the Supreme Court ruled that economic benefits, which included the issue on the formula in computing the TIP share of the employees, is one that arises from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA, and these matters should be referred to a Voluntary Arbitrator, as provided in Art. 261 and 262 of the Labor Code. The peculiar facts of the instant case show that the University was deprived of a remedy that would have enjoined the Union strike and was left without any recourse except to invoke the jurisdiction of the SOLE.
2 comments:
I think the decision of the Supreme Court on the case is very inappropriate with the facts of the case. The meaning of "immediate return to work" is dictionary meaning and does not apply to the issues at bar. A thorough study of the facts will tell the reader that the dispute originated from a bargaining deadlock.The Supreme Court decision (GR 169632) is believed as fabricated. Chief Justice Reynato Puno had furnished the Union a copy of the letter dated November 4, 2008, addressed to the Clerk of Court of the Special First Division to include in their agenda the complaint (on the irregular copy of the Decision) of the USAEU Asst. Secretary. For better and COMPLETE appreciation of the facts based on record and evidence, the reader is referred to the report of the Committee of Experts on Freedom of Association of the International Labour Organization, Case 2488. This can be accessed through Libsynd, ILOLEX Case 2488. The truth must prevail!
Law students are encouraged to discuss the issues in the open, as this "decision" has great bearing on labor issues.
Since 2001, an atmosphere of low employee moral pervades the campus of the University of San Agustin. The administrators are holding back part of the employees' salary. The SC has already ruled last November 2009 that the provision in the CBA that states that the employees should have 75% of the TIP which will be added to their salary is clear unambiguious. The university should have used its common sense in understanding salary does not mean benefits. The motive for the university's refusal for not putting the 75% of the TIP in the salary is that it would like to source all the benefits it will like to give from there, like SSS, teachers' lounge, 13th month pay etc. In short, the university wants to spend the teachers money for them.
Post a Comment