|
OFFICIAL
STATEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN ON THE CURRENT ILLEGAL STRIKE
INSTIGATED BY TERMINATED OFFICERS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN EMPLOYEES
UNION - FFW On April 25, 2005, the terminated
officers of the University of San Agustin Employees Union - FFW (USAEU-FFW),
lead by Theodore Neil Lasola, formally
declared a strike grounded on alleged “union busting.” Prior to their formal declaration, these
dismissed officers held a “prayer
rally” in front of the University of San Agustin. The strike has since been attended only by the dismissed officers
and a handful of warm bodies that are not even employees of the University of
San Agustin. These dismissed officers scare the
Union membership that the USAEU-FFW is being busted by the University
administration. Is it? The
records will show that on March 16, 2005, the University received the Court of
Appeals Decision of March 4, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 85317 declaring
illegal the Union strike of September
19, 2003 and giving the University the option to terminate the Union
officers. On March 29, 2005, the USAEU-FFW submitted to the University its CBA
Proposal for the next five years. On
April 5, 2005, the Union officers were served notices of termination of
employment effective upon receipt. On
April 7, 2005, the Union filed a Notice of Strike with the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board claiming union busting. On April 8, 2005, the Union conducted a strike
vote. On the same very same day, the
Union received the University’s counter-proposal to the Union’s CBA proposal.
On April 11, 2005, the University filed with the NCMB a “Motion to
Dismiss and to Strike Out Notice of Strike” with the NCMB. The NCMB however, as was the case in the
illegal Union strike of September 19, 2003, did not act on said Motion. On April 14, 2005, the Chair of the
University CBA negotiating panel informed the Union that it is ready to meet
its Union counterpart on April 22, 2005.
On April 22, 2005, the University and Union commenced CBA negotiations and
negotiated the whole day. The parties agreed to meet again on April 29,
2005. On April 24, 2005, the terminated
Union officers held a “prayer rally” in front of the University. On April 25, 2005, the terminated Union
officers declared that they were no longer conducting a “prayer rally” but a
strike. On April 26, 2005, in a letter
to the Union, the University informed the Union that it was pulling out CBA
negotiations until the Union ceases
with its illegal strike. The University
personnel who delivered the University’s letter was then given by a Union flyer
captioned “Nga-a Kami Sa USAEU-FFW Nag-Strike?” The above facts show that the
University of San Agustin has not engaged in union busting as claimed by the
terminated Union officers but to the contrary, has always recognized the
USAEU-FFW as the exclusive bargaining representative of the University’s
rank-and-file employees. If the
University is indeed engaged in “union busting,” why did it still submit a CBA
counter-proposal? Why did it meet with
Union representatives last April 22, 2005 to negotiate a new CBA? Why did it
agree to meet again on April 29, 2005?
And yet knowing very well that the University of San Agustin is not and
has not engaged in “union busting,” the Union, its leadership in particular,
struck on this very ground and amid negotiating a CBA. The problem with these terminated Union
officers is that they selfishly, conceitedly and arrogantly believe that they
alone comprise the USAEU-FFW and that since they have been terminated the Union
is being busted. The Union officers were legally
terminated under the aegis of a Court of Appeals decision. If the Union officers and their legal
counsel truly believe that their termination pendente lite was illegal
and constitutes “union busting,” why did they not seek an injunction from the
Court of Appeals which now has jurisdiction not only over the subject matter
but on all of the parties themselves?
Are the Union officers afraid that the Court of Appeals will readily
strike down their charge of “union busting,” the direct effect of which is that
they will no longer have a cause to strike?
It is this fear of a Court of Appeals declaration that the University of
San Agustin is not engaged in “union busting” that the terminated Union officers
have calculatedly filed a notice of strike with the office of NCMB Director
Adorico A. Dadivas. The terminated
Union officers have been advised and know that all the NCMB Director has to do,
as he has done in the past, is not act on the University’s Motion to Strike Out
Notice of Strike for lack of jurisdiction, which will give the Union’s charge
of “union busting” a semblance of legality and credibility to the Union
membership and the general public. The University of San Agustin asks
NCMB Dadivas to do his job and advise the present Union leadership to stop its
present illegal strike. Prior and
during the first union strike, NCMB Director Dadivas had two golden
opportunities to prevent the commission of illegal acts which led to the Court
of Appeals decision that the Union officers had engaged in an illegal strike
and therefore were deemed to have lost their employment status. The first opportunity was when in response
to the Union’s Notice of Strike, the University of San Agustin filed a “Motion
to Strike Out Notice of Strike.” As an
experienced conciliator, NCMB Director Dadivas knew that the Notice of Strike
was illegal, even without the University filing that motion to strike out
notice of strike. Instead of complying
with NCMB Rules and declaring the notice of strike as not considered filed
since there was an existing CBA in full force and effect with a “No Strike, No
Lockout” clause and provision for voluntary arbitration, NCMB Director Dadivas
did not take the required steps to maintain the rule of law in labor relations. The second opportunity was when the
DOLE Sheriffs arrived in Iloilo City to serve the assumption of jurisdiction
order. Instead of immediately
contacting the officers of the union to advise them of such an order and to ask
them to receive and respect such Order, NCMB Director Dadivas played along with
the illegal and discredited practice of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) of
staging and prolonging a strike by means of a resolution that only the
president of the union may accept an assumption of jurisdiction order or AOJ
and then asking the union president to evade service of the AOJ until he was
ready to accept it. Had NCMB Director
Dadivas complied with the law when these two golden opportunities presented
themselves, there would have been no illegal strike and the officials of the
union would not now find themselves dismissed.
In other words, in trying to favor, assist and abet these union
officials, NCMB Director Dadivas actually caused them to lose their employment. NCMB Director Dadivas is now
presented an opportunity to redeem himself and his Office. Do your job NCMB Director Dadivas. Apply the
law, act on the University’s second “Motion to Strike Out Notice of Strike” and
tell the terminated Union officers to put a stop to their illegal strike. Your writing to the legal counsel of the
University of San Agustin to clear your name does not help the University or
the Union. You self-servingly claim
that you are not corrupt. Let the
record of the instant labor dispute speak for itself. The Union flyer captioned “Nga-a
Kami Sa USAEU-FFW Nag-Strike?” gives three reasons for the present strike:
first, that the University President does not follow court orders; second, that
he terminated the Union officers in order to instill fear and have his way in
the University and third, that tuition income has been spent on court bonds and
legal fees to the detriment of employee benefits. What ever happened to the charge of “union busting”? The deception by the present Union
leadership to its membership is clear.
The terminated Union officers know that the USAEU-FFW was and is not
being busted. The truth is the Union
leadership declared a strike only because they were terminated. When will this deception and resort to extralegal
recourse end? Did the Union leadership
and its legal counsel inform the Union membership prior to conducting a strike
vote that even when a motion for reconsideration is filed by a party, the Rules
of Court allows the court, including the Court of Appeals, to direct execution
of its judgment? Is the Union
leadership aware or has been made aware of Rule 52, Section 4 of the Rules of
Court by its legal counsel? Is the
Union membership aware that new CBA negotiations were actually held last April
22, 2005 attended no less by Theodore Neil Lasola, Merlyn Jara, Julius Mario,
Rizalene Villanueva, Rena Lete, Nick Caldelero and the Union legal
counsel? Is the Union membership aware
that the University is verifying and has asked Mr. Theodore Neil Lasola to
comment on two requests for reconsideration from Union officers who claim they
did not participate in the illegal strike of September 19, 2003? And that to
date, Mr. Lasola has not submitted his comments? Does the Union membership know that their legal counsel, Atty.
Mae M. Gallecanao-Laserna, a former DOLE Regional Director, as her main defense
and in her attempt to discredit the DOLE Sheriffs Report pathetically argued
against a picture presented to the Secretary of Labor and Employment? The Union counsel argued that the University
gate clocked showed 10:45 a.m. when the picture clearly showed the time of 8:47
a.m. It turns out that the Union
counsel used the “second hand” in claiming the time of 10:45 a.m. This ridiculous main defense or claim prompted
the Secretary of Labor and Employment to come up with findings of her own which
the Court of Appeals readily ruled was not supported and in fact rejected by
the DOLE Sheriffs Report. The University urges the Union
membership to demand from its leadership a full disclosure and accounting of
what happened prior and during the strike of September 19, 2003 that has lead
to the dismissal of the Union officers and put an end to this deception. In the meantime and until the Union
leadership ceases its second illegal strike, the University of San Agustin is
not obligated and will not negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with the
USAEU-FFW. The University reiterates its hope
that a Union member’s decision to join or not to join the present strike will
be the result of objective and rational reflection and not fueled by unthinking
passion and cries for sympathy. The
record relating to the present charge of “union busting” has been presented
above to espouse rational judgment or decision-making. The
University of San Agustin has not engaged in union busting as deceptively
claimed by the terminated Union officers.
To the contrary, as the records will show, the University of San Agustin
has always recognized the USAEU-FFW as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the University’s rank-and-file employees.
The dismissal of the Union officers pendente lite was pursuant to
the Decision of the Court of Appeals and sanctioned by the Rules of Court; in
particular, the rule on motions for reconsideration. The University of San Agustin is ready, willing and has in fact
began to negotiate a new CBA with the USAEU-FFW. It is however constrained to pull out of CBA negotiations due to
the second illegal union strike: a product of a deceptive, selfish, self-serving
and irresponsible Union leadership. THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN Iloilo City 27 April 2005 |
