The Supreme Court (SC) turned down an appeal filed by paper manufacturer PICOP Resources Inc. (PRI) in a labor case involving employees who were fired after they changed allegiances in the labor group which would represent them in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the company.
In its decision, the high court’s Third Division through Associate Justice Jose Mendoza turned down the petition of PRI and its senior vice-president and resident manager Wilfredo Fuentes.
“Their freedom to choose who should be their bargaining representative is of paramount importance.” the SC said referring to the workers who were dismissed.
“Due process must be observed in dismissing an employee, because it affects not only his position but also his means of livelihood. Employers should, therefore, respect and protect the rights of their employees, which include the right to labor.” the tribunal explained as it ordered backwages as well as lawyers fees.
Other members of the Third Division are Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta,Roberto A. Abad, Ma. Lourdes P. A. Sereno and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.
The employees, Ricardo Dequilla, Cesar Atienza and Aniceto Orbeta were regular rank-and-file employees of Picop Resources, Inc. (PICOP) and members of the NAMAPRI-SPFL, a duly registered labor organization and existing bargaining agent of the PICOP rank-and-file employees.
PICOP and NAMAPRI-SPFL had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) which would expire on May 22, 2000.
On May 16, 2000, the late Atty. Proculo P. Fuentes, Jr. , then National President of the Southern Philippines Federation of Labor(SPFL), advised the PICOP management to terminate about 800 employees due to acts of disloyalty, specifically, for allegedly campaigning, supporting and signing a petition for the certification of a rival union, the Federation of Free Workers Union (FFW) before the 60-day “freedom period” and during the effectivity of the CBA.
Such acts of disloyalty he claimed maybe construed to be a valid cause for termination under the terms and conditions of the CBA. Based on the CBA, the freedom period would start on March 22, 2000.
Acting on the advice of Atty. Fuentes, Atty. Romero Boniel , Manager of the PICOP Legal and Labor Relations Department, issued a memorandum directing the employees concerned to explain within seventy-two (72) hours why their employment should not be terminated due to alleged acts of disloyalty. Upon receiving their explanation letters, Atty. Boniel endorsed the same to Atty. Fuentes who then requested the termination of 46 employees found guilty of acts of disloyalty.
On October 16, 2000, PICOP served a notice of termination due to acts of disloyalty to 31 of the 46 employees.The respondents were among the 31 employees dismissed from employment by PICOP on November 16, 2000.
Enraged at what management did to them, private respondents filed a complaint before the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No. XIII, Butuan City, for Unfair Labor Practice and Illegal Dismissal with money claims, damages and attorney’s fees.
On June 9, 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring as illegal the termination of the private respondents.
The arbiter was however reversed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which in turn was reversed by the Court of Appeals prompting Picop to bring the case to the high court.
“The fact that there already exists a bargaining representative in the unit concerned is of no moment as long as the petition for certification election was filed within the freedom period. What is imperative is that by such a petition for certification election the employees are given the opportunity to make known of who shall have the right to represent them thereafter. Not only some, but all of them should have the right to do so. What is equally important is that everyone be given a democratic space in the bargaining unit concerned.” the SC said in upholding the workers’ position.### Benjamin B. Pulta, Daily Tribune
http://www.tucp.org.ph/news/index.php/2011/12/sc-junks-picop-appeal-on-illegal-dismissal-case/
In its decision, the high court’s Third Division through Associate Justice Jose Mendoza turned down the petition of PRI and its senior vice-president and resident manager Wilfredo Fuentes.
“Their freedom to choose who should be their bargaining representative is of paramount importance.” the SC said referring to the workers who were dismissed.
“Due process must be observed in dismissing an employee, because it affects not only his position but also his means of livelihood. Employers should, therefore, respect and protect the rights of their employees, which include the right to labor.” the tribunal explained as it ordered backwages as well as lawyers fees.
Other members of the Third Division are Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta,Roberto A. Abad, Ma. Lourdes P. A. Sereno and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.
The employees, Ricardo Dequilla, Cesar Atienza and Aniceto Orbeta were regular rank-and-file employees of Picop Resources, Inc. (PICOP) and members of the NAMAPRI-SPFL, a duly registered labor organization and existing bargaining agent of the PICOP rank-and-file employees.
PICOP and NAMAPRI-SPFL had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) which would expire on May 22, 2000.
On May 16, 2000, the late Atty. Proculo P. Fuentes, Jr. , then National President of the Southern Philippines Federation of Labor(SPFL), advised the PICOP management to terminate about 800 employees due to acts of disloyalty, specifically, for allegedly campaigning, supporting and signing a petition for the certification of a rival union, the Federation of Free Workers Union (FFW) before the 60-day “freedom period” and during the effectivity of the CBA.
Such acts of disloyalty he claimed maybe construed to be a valid cause for termination under the terms and conditions of the CBA. Based on the CBA, the freedom period would start on March 22, 2000.
Acting on the advice of Atty. Fuentes, Atty. Romero Boniel , Manager of the PICOP Legal and Labor Relations Department, issued a memorandum directing the employees concerned to explain within seventy-two (72) hours why their employment should not be terminated due to alleged acts of disloyalty. Upon receiving their explanation letters, Atty. Boniel endorsed the same to Atty. Fuentes who then requested the termination of 46 employees found guilty of acts of disloyalty.
On October 16, 2000, PICOP served a notice of termination due to acts of disloyalty to 31 of the 46 employees.The respondents were among the 31 employees dismissed from employment by PICOP on November 16, 2000.
Enraged at what management did to them, private respondents filed a complaint before the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No. XIII, Butuan City, for Unfair Labor Practice and Illegal Dismissal with money claims, damages and attorney’s fees.
On June 9, 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring as illegal the termination of the private respondents.
The arbiter was however reversed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which in turn was reversed by the Court of Appeals prompting Picop to bring the case to the high court.
“The fact that there already exists a bargaining representative in the unit concerned is of no moment as long as the petition for certification election was filed within the freedom period. What is imperative is that by such a petition for certification election the employees are given the opportunity to make known of who shall have the right to represent them thereafter. Not only some, but all of them should have the right to do so. What is equally important is that everyone be given a democratic space in the bargaining unit concerned.” the SC said in upholding the workers’ position.### Benjamin B. Pulta, Daily Tribune
No comments:
Post a Comment