| |
The freedom of association clause, which
now embraces employees in the public sector, carries a special
significance to the rights of the individual worker. The Supreme
Court has described this freedom as “both a right and a privilege.”
This implies not only the right to join a labor union, but also the
privilege of not joining one, of selecting which union to join, and
of disaffiliating from a union. (Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54)
The exception to this right arises when it runs into conflict with
the collective right of labor to self-organization as expressed in
the union security clause of collective bargaining agreements.
Hence, a closed shop provision in a CBA, while it has a generally
prospective application to new workers, was held to apply to old
workers who were not members of any union, but not to those who
already belonged to another union at the time of the signing of the
CBA. (Art. 249-e; Juat vs. CIR, 15 SCRA 395)
The rationale of the collective right of labor was explained thusly:
“Petitioners, although entitled to disaffiliate from their union and
to form a new organization of their own must, however, suffer the
consequences of their separation from the union under the security
clause of the CBA. Inherent in every labor union is the right to
self-preservation; when they seek the disintegration of the very
union to which they belong, they thereby forfeit their rights to
remain as members. Prudence and equity, as well as the dictates of
law and justice, therefore compel mandate of the adoption by the
labor union of such corrective and remedial measures, in keeping
with its laws and regulations, for its preservation and continued
existence, lest by its folly and inaction the labor union amble and
fan.” (Milar vs. Inciong, 121 SCRA 444)
A closed shop provision in the CBA, where applicable, does not
however mean automatic termination, Actual dismissal based on this
clause should not be characterized with arbitrariness, and must
always be with due process to the employee Manila Mandarin Employees
Union vs. NLRC, 154 SCRA 368; Sauyo vs. Canizares, 211 SCRA 361;
Kalaw vs. NLRC, 202 SCRA 7)
Under a maintenance of membership clause, the duty to remain a
member of the bargaining union exists only for the duration of the
CBA. Freedom of association is unconstitutionally invaded if such
duty is stipulated beyond that period. This duty ceases to be
binding only during the 60-day freedom period before the expiration
of the CBA. (Tänduay Distillery Labor Union vs. Thnduay Distillery,
Inc. and NLRC, 149 SCRA 470).
Another restriction in the application of a union security clause is
that the sanction involved therein must be explicitly stated, and
cannot be implied. If the clause does not expressly give the right
to dismiss the worker upon its violation, the employer cannot do so,
as the right to dismiss must be clear, categorical and express.
Manila Cordage Co. vs. dR. 78 SCRA 398) In a more recent case,
however, the dismissal of union members for violating a union
security clause requiring membership in good standing ‘as a
condition of their continued employment” was held to be valid and
privileged, and did not constitute an unfair labor practice.
(Tanduay Distillery Labor Union vs. Thnduay Distillery, Inc. & NLRC,
supra)
For the first time, the Constitution grants government employees
individually the freedom of association (Art. III, Sec. 8), and
collectively, the right to self-organization (Art.IX, Sec. 2 [5];
Art.XHI, Sec. 3). These rights are further regulated by Sec. 6, Ex.
0. No. 180.
8. NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE. The
Bill of Right provides a guarantee of non-impairment as follows:
Sec. 10 - No krw impairing the obligation of contracts shall be
passed.
From the standpoint of a worker’s right, this guarantee could be
described more relevantly as the right to the sanctity of employment
contracts.
The contracts protected by the non-impairment clause are confined to
those respecting property or property rights, such as employment
contracts. The obligation of such contracts refers to the duty of
performing the contracts according to their terms and intent. Thus,
a subsequent law or ordinance which destroys or diminishes the value
of these contracts or deviates from their terms impairs their
obligation.
However, the principal limitation to this cause is the Police Power
of he State. When lawfully exercised, this inherent power may be
justifiably used even to the extent of impairing the obligation of
contracts, because the Police Power is superior to the
non-impairment clause. (Pantranco vs. Public Service Commission, 70
Phil. 221; Abe vs. Foster Wheeler Corp., 110 Phil, 198; Asia Bed
Factory vs. National Bed and Kapok Industries Workers Union, 100
Phil. 837)
9. FREE ACCESS TO COURTS AND QUASI -
JUDICIAL
BODIES. This individual right is guaranteed in this Bill
of Rights provision:
Sec. 11 -- Free access to the courts and quasi - judicial bodies,
and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by
reason of poverty. (Art.III, Const.)
This right is quite relevant to the individual worker as it affords
the worker a double protection which could otherwise be negated on
account of poverty. The protection of free access has been
expanded-- more relevantly to labor -- to include quasi-judicial
bodies which have jurisdiction over labor cases.
The second guarantee of “adequate legal assistance’ is a new
Constitutional right of individual workers. It seeks to offset the
disadvantage that a worker, due to limited resources, may not be
able to afford competent legal services. This right is now being
protected by both public and private entities.
10. RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES.
The text establishing this right provides:
Sec. 16 -- All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition
of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative
bodies. (Art. III, Const.)
The scope of this right is broad enough to cover all forms of labor
disputes. The right is of particular significance to the worker
whose limited resources do not give him the capability to sustain a
protracted litigation. Oftentimes, the worker finds himself so
hard-pressed and subjected to delay that he agrees to unfair
settlements or altogether abandons enforcing his right due to this
inability. This guarantee seeks to prevent such an unjust situation.
The right, however, does not mean undue haste in the proceedings; it
means that these are to be conducted with reasonable promptness
consistent with the due administration of justice.
11. RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.
This right is embodied in the following provision:
Sec. 18(2)-- No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except
as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted. (Art. III Const.)
This prohibition covers the following practices: a) Slavery or the
state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another and
b) Involuntary servitude generally, or a condition of enforced
compulsory service of one to another.
Its purpose, from a labor standpoint is “. . . to make labor free,
by prohibiting that control by which the personal service of one man
is disposed of or coerced for another’s benefit, which is the
essence of involuntary servitude.” (Bailey vs. Alabama, 219 U.S.
119)
Hence, gratuitous services to secure payment of a loan is not only
denounced, but also subjects the creditor to criminal prosecution if
he shall compel the debtor to work for him, against his will, as
household servant or farm laborer. (de los Reyes vs. Alojado, 16
Phil. 499; Art. 274, Penal Code)
But a return-to-work order in a labor dispute issued under Sec. 19
of C.A. 103 was upheld when challenged as volatile of this clause.
The Court ruled in this regard that “An employee entering into a
contract of employment voluntarily accepts, among other conditions,
those prescribed in said Section 19. . . The voluntaries of the
employee’s entering into it or not --- with such implied condition,
negatives the possibility of involuntary servitude ensuing. . .“
(Kaisahan vs. Gotamco Sawsmills, 80 Phil. 521)
By extension, this does not justify an employee from choosing to do
certain tasks, and refusing to do others entailed in his job. This
is clearly beyond the pale of this prohibition.
B. COLLECTIVE RIGHTS OF LABOR
12. RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION. The Protection to Labor clause, Art,
XIII Sec. 3, ensures this right of labor in these words: “It (the
State) shall guarantee the rights of all workers to
self-organization...”
This right is protected because of the underlying reason that
workers and their employer are placed not upon a position of
equality but upon a position of the quality. Only a well-organized,
high-minded labor union speaking with a single, yet potent, voice
can hope to deal with a powerful employer with some semblance of
equality. This reason lies at the very root of unionism.
The protection refers to “all workers”, which includes government
employees in the civil service (Art. III, Sec. 8; Art. IX, Sec.
2[5J; Sec.6, Ex. 0. No. 111), and in government-owned and controlled
corporations without original charters. This right is however
subject to two limitations, via:
a) High-level employees whose functions are normally considered as
policy-making or managerial or whose duties are of a highly
confidential nature shall not be eligible to join the organization
of rank-and-file government employees (Sec. 3, Ex. 0. No. 180); and
b) The right does not apply to members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, including police officers, policemen, firemen and jail
guards (Sec. 4, Id.).
Certain exclusions are also provided among employees in the private
sector, such as managerial employees, members of cooperatives, etc.
13. RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING NEGOTIATION.
This right, which is also given by the Protection to Labor clause,
is corollary to the right to self-organization. It infers the
existence of a labor organization, and indicates its role in
fostering industrial peace. Without this companion right, a labor
union will have no voice or power to represent the workers’
interests before their employee and it would be inutile. With it,
workers are enabled to negotiate with the employer on the same level
and with more persuasiveness than if they were to bargain
individually and independently for the improvement of their
respective conditions.
The terms “collective bargaining” and “negotiation” are often used
interchangeably. How they differ with related terms such as
grievance procedures and arbitration was well pointed out by
Professors Cox and Dunlop in the Harvard Law Review, thus:
Collective bargaining normally takes the form of negotiation when
major conditions of employment to be written into an agreement are
under consideration, and of grievance committee meetings and
arbitration when questions arising from the administration of an
agreement are at stake. (Republic Savings Bank vs. CIR, 21 SCRA226,
citing Harvard Law Review, 1097,1105 [1950)This right is applicable
to government employees in the civil service, but with certain
restrictions. Thus, terms and conditions of employment, or
improvements thereof; except those that are fixed by law, may be the
subject of negotiations between duly recognized employees’
organizations and appropriate government authorities (Sec. 13, Ex.
0. No. 180, Underscoring supplied). Obviously, terms and conditions
fixed by law cannot be changed by negotiation.
14. RIGHT TO PEACEFUL CONCERTED ACTIVITIES. This
is another corollary to the right to self-organization as it affords
to labor unions the potential for action to enforce their demands.
The right is established in the protection to labor clause which
provides in pertinent part: “It (the State) shall guarantee the
rights of all workers to peaceful concerted activities, including
the right to strike in accordance with law. . .“ (Art. XIII, Sec.
3).
The term “concerted activities” is defined as the activities of two
or more employees for the purpose of securing benefits or changes in
terms and conditions of employment, or for mutual aid or protection
with respect to their collective interest as employees. This
definition comprehensively covers a wide range of acts from
grievances and representations to strikes. Resolution of industrial
disputes through voluntary initiatives has the advantage of
simplicity, certainty and privacy. But the coercive versions of
stokes and picketing, because of their far-reaching consequences to
the economy and to the larger interest of society, are subject to
regulation.
The Constitution itself in guaranteeing this tight, qualifies it
with the condition that concerted activities should be “peaceful,”
and that the right to strike be “in accordance with law.”
Next Pages
|
|
