This document summarizes a labor dispute between the Philcom Employees Union (PEU) and Philippine Global Communications (Philcom). PEU filed notices of strike against Philcom due to alleged unfair labor practices during contract negotiations. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and ordered workers to return to work. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that Philcom's acts did not constitute unfair labor practices. The Supreme Court dismissed PEU's petition but modified the ruling to have the Secretary determine which union officers and members participated in the illegal strike or defied return-to-work orders.
This document summarizes a labor dispute between the Philcom Employees Union (PEU) and Philippine Global Communications (Philcom). PEU filed notices of strike against Philcom due to alleged unfair labor practices during contract negotiations. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and ordered workers to return to work. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that Philcom's acts did not constitute unfair labor practices. The Supreme Court dismissed PEU's petition but modified the ruling to have the Secretary determine which union officers and members participated in the illegal strike or defied return-to-work orders.
This document summarizes a labor dispute between the Philcom Employees Union (PEU) and Philippine Global Communications (Philcom). PEU filed notices of strike against Philcom due to alleged unfair labor practices during contract negotiations. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and ordered workers to return to work. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that Philcom's acts did not constitute unfair labor practices. The Supreme Court dismissed PEU's petition but modified the ruling to have the Secretary determine which union officers and members participated in the illegal strike or defied return-to-work orders.
This document summarizes a labor dispute between the Philcom Employees Union (PEU) and Philippine Global Communications (Philcom). PEU filed notices of strike against Philcom due to alleged unfair labor practices during contract negotiations. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the dispute and ordered workers to return to work. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that Philcom's acts did not constitute unfair labor practices. The Supreme Court dismissed PEU's petition but modified the ruling to have the Secretary determine which union officers and members participated in the illegal strike or defied return-to-work orders.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
G.R. No.
144315 July 17, 2006
PHILCOM EMPLOYEES UNION, petitioner,
vs. PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS and PHILCOM CORPORATION, respondents.
This is a petition for review to annul the Decision dated 31 July 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 53989. The Court of Appeals affirmed the assailed portions of the 2 October 1998 and 27 November 1998 Orders of the Secretary of Labor and Employment in OS-AJ-0022-97.
FACTS: Upon the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between petitioner Philcom Employees Union (PEU or union, for brevity) and private respondent Philippine Global Communications, Inc. (Philcom, Inc.) on June 30, 1997, the parties started negotiations for the renewal of their CBA in July 1997. While negotiations were ongoing, PEU filed on October 21, 1997 with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) – National Capital Region, a Notice of Strike, docketed as NCMB-NCR-NS No. 10-435-97, due to perceived unfair labor practice committed by the company In view of the filing of the Notice of Strike, the company suspended negotiations on the CBA which moved the union to file on November 4, 1997 another Notice of Strike, docketed as NCMB-NCR-NS No. 11-465-97, on the ground of bargaining deadlock at a conciliation conference held at the NCMB-NCR office, the parties agreed to consolidate the two (2) Notices of Strike filed by the union and to maintain the status quo during the pendency of the proceedings. On November 17, 1997, while the union and the company officers and representatives were meeting, the remaining union officers and members staged a strike at the company premises, barricading the entrances and egresses thereof and setting up a stationary picket at the main entrance of the building. The following day, the company immediately filed a petition for the Secretary of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute in accordance with Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. Acting Labor Secretary Cresenciano B. Trajano issued an Order assuming jurisdiction over the dispute, enjoining any strike or lockout, whether threatened or actual, directing the parties to cease and desist from committing any act that may exacerbate the situation, directing the striking workers to return to work within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the Secretary's Order and for management to resume normal operations, as well as accept the workers back under the same terms and conditions prior to the strike. The parties were likewise required to submit their respective position papers and evidence within ten (10) days from receipt of said order. On November 28, 1997, a second order was issued reiterating the previous directive to all striking employees to return to work immediately. On November 27, 1997, the union filed a Motion for Reconsideration assailing, among others, the authority of then Acting Secretary Trajano to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute but the said motion was denied.
In its position paper, the union raised the issue of the alleged unfair labor practice of the company hereunder enumerated as follows:
"(a) PABX transfer and contractualization of PABX service and position;
"(b) Massive contractualization;
"(c) Flexible labor and additional work/function;
"(d) Disallowance of union leave intended for union seminar;
"(e) Misimplementation and/or non-implementation of employees' benefits like shoe
allowance, rainboots, raincoats, OIC shift allowance, P450.00 monthly allowance, driving allowance, motorcycle award and full-time physician;
"(f) Non-payment, discrimination and/or deprivation of overtime, restday work,
waiting/stand by time and staff meetings;
"(g) Economic inducement by promotion during CBA negotiation;
"(h) Disinformation scheme, surveillance and interference with union affairs;
"(i) Issuance of memorandum/notice to employees without giving copy to union,
change in work schedule at Traffic Records Section and ITTO policies; and
"(j) Inadequate transportation allowance, water and facilities."
The Court of Appeals held that Philcom's acts, which PEU complained of as unfair labor practices, were not in any way related to the workers' right to self-organization under Article 248 of the Labor Code. The Court of Appeals held that PEU's complaint constitutes an enumeration of mere grievances which should have been threshed out through the grievance machinery or voluntary arbitration outlined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). ISSUE: Whether or not Philcom has committed several unfair labor practices. PEU asserts that there are "factual and evidentiary bases" for the charge of unfair labor practices against them.
RULING: PEU's contentions are untenable. PEU contends that the Secretary should not have taken cognizance of the issue on the alleged illegal strike because it was not properly submitted to the Secretary for resolution. PEU asserts that after Philcom submitted its position paper where it raised the issue of the legality of the strike, PEU immediately opposed the same by filing its Manifestation/Motion to Strike Out Portions of and Attachments in Philcom's Position Paper. PEU asserts that it stated in its Manifestation/Motion that certain portions of Philcom's position paper and some of its attachments were "irrelevant, immaterial and impertinent to the issues assumed for resolution." Thus, PEU asserts that the Court of Appeals should not have affirmed the Secretary's order denying PEU's Manifestation/Motion. PEU also contends that, contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals, the Secretary's assumption of jurisdiction over the labor dispute was based on the two notices of strike that PEU filed with the NCMB. PEU asserts that only the issues on unfair labor practice and bargaining deadlock should be resolved in the present case. PEU insists that to include the issue on the legality of the strike despite its opposition would convert the case into a petition to declare the strike illegal. DISMISS the petition and AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 53989, with the MODIFICATION that the Secretary of Labor is directed to determine who among the Philcom Employees Union officers participated in the illegal strike, and who among the union members committed illegal acts or defied the return- to-work orders of 19 November 1997 and 28 November 1997. No pronouncement as to costs.
