|
OFFICIAL
STATEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN REGARDING THE “PARTIALLY AMENDED
DECISION” DATED 23 AUGUST 2005 OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS IN CA-G.R. SP
NO. 85317 ENTITLED “UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN VS. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.” On 5 September 2005, the University
of San Agustin received the “Partially Amended Decision” dated 23 August 2005
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85317 entitled “University of San
Agustin v. The Secretary of Labor and Employment, et al.” It will be remembered that in a Decision
dated 4 March 2005, the Court of Appeals (a) declared illegal the 19 September
2003 strike held by the University of San Agustin Employees Union – FFW
(“USAEU-FFW”), (b) ruled that the union officers are deemed to have lost their
employment status and (c) gave the University of San Agustin the option to
terminate the union officers. The
Decision of 4 March 2005 likewise ruled that the Secretary of Labor and
Employment (“SOLE”) did not commit grave abuse of discretion when she resolved
the economic issues, including the issue of the computation of tuition
incremental proceeds, the impasse over which led the USAEU-FFW to declare a
bargaining deadlock and eventually a strike.
Both parties filed their respective Motions for Partial
Reconsideration. In addition, the
USAEU-FFW prayed that the University of San Agustin and its President, Fr.
Manuel M. Vergara, OSA be declared in contempt for terminating the union
officers on 5 April 2005. In its Partially Amended Decision of
23 August 2005, the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED its ruling that the
USAEU-FFW strike of 19 September 2003 is ILLEGAL. The appellate court
again expressly ruled: “The Union
officers, as a result, are deemed to have lost their employment status for having
knowingly participated in an illegal act.
The petitioner, may, at its option serve notice of their termination
from employment.” In addition, the Court of Appeals,
after a painstaking study and evaluation of the Motion for Partial
Reconsideration filed by the University of San Agustin, and after thoroughly
examining and reviewing the records, found merit and resolved to grant said
Motion for Partial Reconsideration. The Court of Appeals ruled that the SOLE
committed grave abuse of discretion when, after issuing an assumption of
jurisdiction order, she proceeded to resolve the economic issues and
disregarded the Grievance Machinery provisions of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (“CBA”) of the University of San Agustin and USAEU-FFW which ends in
voluntary arbitration. “As to the
other issues (economic provisions of the CBA) raised by the petitioner, we find
that the public respondent SOLE likewise abused her discretion in resolving the
same. These issues arise from the
interpretation or implementation of the CBA and those arising from the
interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. Thus, these are proper subjects of the
grievance machinery as embodied in the parties’ CBA. It must be remembered that the CBA is the law between the parties. It is an agreement freely and voluntarily
entered into by them. All terms and
conditions therein must be complied with.
The parties have further agreed that, should the grievance machinery as
provided in the CBA fail to resolve the dispute, the same shall be referred to
a Voluntary Arbitrator for arbitration and final resolution. Clearly
therefore, the issues on the economic provisions of the CBA must be resolved
through the grievance machinery agreed upon by the parties. As had been consistently held, voluntary
arbitration takes precedence over other dispute settlement devices. It is the policy of the State to encourage
voluntary arbitration on all labor-management disputes. In fact, a grievance procedure is a ‘must’
provision in any CBA and no collective agreement can be registered in the
absence of such procedure. In sum, by
the express agreement by the parties in their CBA to submit to grievance
machinery, the issues regarding the economic provisions of the CBA must be
referred to such grievance procedure for proper disposition.” The dispositive portion of the
Partially Amended Decision reads: “WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing
premises, an amended judgment is hereby rendered by us GRANTING the petition for certiorari, SETTING ASIDE also the Decision rendered by the public respondent
SOLE on April 6, 2004 and DECLARING the
strike held on September 19, 2003 by respondent Union as ILLEGAL. The union officers
are therefore deemed to have lost their employment status. The
parties are hereby DIRECTED to refer
the economic issues of the CBA to VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION, where the computation
and determination of the TIP [tuition incremental proceeds] shall be in the
manner directed in the body of this Decision.” In light of the Partially Amended
Decision of the Court of Appeals, the USAEU-FFW strike of 19 September 2003 is
now illegal of two (2) grounds: (a)
deliberate refusal to acknowledge receipt of the SOLE’s assumption of
jurisdiction order when served by DOLE Sheriffs and (b) violation of the “No
Strike, No Lockout” and “Grievance Machinery” provisions of the CBA. AS IT TURNS OUT, THERE WAS NO REASON
WHATSOEVER FOR THE UNION OFFICERS, NOW DISMISSED, TO CALL FOR A STRIKE ON 19
SEPTEMBER 2003. Why then, one may
ask, was the USAEU-FFW so bold as to strike in 2003 and to refuse to receive an
assumption of jurisdiction order? In a
“Motion to Strike Out ‘Notice of Strike’,” the University of San Agustin even
called the attention of the USAEU-FFW and NCMB Director Adorico Dadivas to the
CBA’s “No Strike, No Lockout” and Grievance machinery clauses. Why the outright brazenness on the part of
the USAEU-FFW to proceed with the strike? The DOLE Sheriff’s Report of 26
September 2003 provides the reason. The Partially Amended Decision likewise
puts into perspective the current strike by the dismissed union officers that
started last 25 April 2005. LIKE THE
STRIKE OF 19 SEPTEMBER 2003, THE CURRENT STRIKE IS ALSO ILLEGAL. It is noteworthy that the Court of Appeals
did not even bother to address the motion filed by USAEU-FFW’s counsel to
declare the University of San Agustin and its President in contempt of court
for dismissing pendente lite the
union officers. If indeed the
University of San Agustin committed an illegal act when it dismissed the union
officers last 5 April 2005 as these officers misrepresent – especially to the
students – why was it not declared in contempt by the Court of Appeals? If indeed the University President committed
an illegal act when he served letters of termination of employment to the union
officers last 5 April 2005 as these officers have vilified him, why did the
Court of Appeals again give the University of San Agustin the option to serve
notices of termination from employment.
THE TRUTH HAS FINALLY COME OUT: THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN HAD THE
RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE UNION OFFICERS AND SERVE THEM NOTICES OF TERMINATION OF
EMPLOYMENT. IN ADDITION, THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN DID NOT ENGAGE IN UNION
BUSTING AS AGAIN MISREPRESENTED BY THESE DISMISSED UNION OFFICERS. In closing, the University of San
Agustin and the Augustinian Community call for sobriety and respect for the
rule of law, both civil and canon. We
also reiterate our position that only after justice has been served can charity
and reconciliation follow. We manifest
our willingness and readiness to discuss with the dismissed union officers
possible arrangements with the view of helping them get on with their lives
beyond the University of San Agustin. This official statement is being
issued by the University of San Agustin for the information and guidance of its
personnel, students (and their parents), alumni as well as the general public. THE ADMINISTRATORS UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN Iloilo City 6 September 2005 |
