|
OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN ON THE DECISION DATED MARCH 28, 2006 BY THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN G. R. NO. 169632 ENTITLED "UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN" Almost a
year following the termination of the officers of the University of San Agustin
Employees Union-FFW or USAEU-FFW on April 7, 2005, which termination was
pursuant to the decision of the Court of Appeals declaring illegal the
USAEU-FFW strike of September 19, 2003, declaring the union officers to have
lost their employment status, and ordering the parties, the USAEU-FFW in
particular, to proceed to voluntary arbitration, the Supreme Court has rendered
a decision on the appeal interposed by the USAEU-FFW anent said decision of the
appellate court in CA-G.R. SP NO. 85317. In a
Decision dated March 28, 2006, which was announced by the Supreme Court on its
official website, the Supreme Court denied the appeal of the USAEU-FFW and
affirmed in toto the decision of the Court of Appeals. “WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED. The
Partially Amended Decision dated August 23, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 85317 is AFFIRMED.” The Supreme
Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error in (a)
declaring illegal the USAEU-FFW strike of September 19, 2003 and (b) directing
the parties to submit to voluntary arbitration as provided in their Collective
Bargaining Agreement or CBA. Ever since
the 2003 strike, the University of San Agustin and its administrators have been
made targets of vicious print and radio personalities sympathetic to the
USAEU-FFW. They blamed the University
of San Agustin for the strike of September 19, 2003. They blame the University of San Agustin for the current
strike. They blamed the University of
San Agustin for the termination of the USAEU-FFW officers. These attacks have caused confusion, animosity
and division not only among the studentry of the University of San Agustin but
the general public, including some of the clergy. The University of San Agustin
and its administrators would like to set the record straight. (1) The
USAEU-FFW were hell bent on striking on September 19, 2003. The University of San Agustin asked then
NCMB Director Adorico Dadivas to strike out the USAEU-FFW’s ”Notice of Strike” as the CBA of the
University and Union contained ”No Strike, No Lockout” and voluntary arbitration
clauses. Dadivas did absolutely nothing with the University of San Agustin’s
motion to strike out the USAEU-FFW’s ”Notice of Strike” which omission
facilitated and allowed the USAEU-FFW to strike. As it turns out, Dadivas, on
the day of the strike, assisted the USAEU-FFW and its legal counsel Atty. Mae
Gellecanao-Laserna, a former DOLE Regional Director. Dadivas even corruptly
instructed the DOLE Sheriffs to disregard the very procedure the DOLE Sheriffs
follow in serving the assumption of jurisdiction order issued by the Secretary
of Labor. Worse, Dadivas instructed the DOLE Sheriffs to consider the
assumption of jurisdiction order served only when USAEU-FFW President Theodore
Neil Lasola appeared to receive the same. (2) The
dismissal of the USAEU-FFW officers was not an act of union busting as claimed
by these dismissed officers. The
dismissal was pursuant to the decision of the Court of Appeals declaring the
USAEU-FFW strike of September 19, 2003 illegal and as a result, the union
officers are deemed to have lost their employment status. This portion of the decision of the Court of
Appeals was immediately executory.
Prior to the second strike of the USAEU-FFW which commenced on April 25,
2005, the University of San Agustin and USAEU-FFW were negotiating a new CBA.
In negotiating with the USAEU-FFW, this only meant that the University of San
Agustin recognized the USAEU-FFW as the official bargaining representative of
its employees. The University of San
Agustin however was constrained to pull out of the negotiations in light of the
second illegal strike. (3) The
University of San Agustin was always open to an amicable settlement. A settlement however could not be reached
since the dismissed union officers at the outset insisted on their reinstatement.
In light of the chronicled corruption that tainted the USAEU-FFW strike of
September 19, 2003,the administrators of the University of San Agustin deemed
the reinstatement of the USAEU-FFW officers, unless ordered by the court, to be
a non-negotiable issue. Could the
USAEU-FFW strike of September 19, 2003 have been avoided and consequently,
these dismissed union officers will not be in the quagmire they presently find
themselves? The answer is a
resounding “YES.” The Supreme Court decision in fact points to two
personalities who had the authority, duty and moral ascendancy to pre-empt the
strike: NCMB Director Adorico Dadivas and USAEU-FFW legal counsel Atty. Mae
Gellecanao-Laserna. According
to the Supreme Court, if Dadivas only did what he was supposed to do under the
law, i.e., declare the USAEU-FFW ”Notice of Strike” as ”not duly filed,” there would not have been a strike on
September 19, 2003. These USAEU-FFW
officers would still have their jobs.
The USAEU-FFW’s filing of a ”Notice of Strike” and the inaction of
Dadivas on the University of San Agustin’s request to strike out said ”Notice
of Strike,” according to the Supreme Court, were calculated measures to
circumvent the CBA’s ”No Strike, No Lockout” and voluntary arbitration clauses
and to pave the way for a strike. “The
grievance machinery and no strike, no lockout provisions of the CBA forged by
the University and the Union are founded on Articles 261 and 262 quoted
above. The parties agreed that
practically all disputes – including bargaining deadlocks – shall be referred
to the grievance machinery which ends in voluntary arbitration. Moreover, no strike or no lockout shall
ensue while the matter is being resolved. The
University filed a Motion to Strike Out Notice of Strike and to Refer the
Dispute to Voluntary Arbitration precisely to call the attention of the
NCMB and the Union to the fact that the CBA provides for a grievance machinery
and the parties’ obligation to exhaust and honor said mechanism. Accordingly, the NCMB should have
directed the Union to honor its agreement with the University to exhaust
administrative grievance measures and bring the alleged deadlock to voluntary
arbitration. Unfortunately, the NCMB
did not resolve the University’s motion thus paving the way for the strike on
September 19, 2003 and the deliberate circumvention of the CBA’s grievance
machinery and voluntary arbitration provisions. x x x x x x
x x x In short, the peculiar facts of the
instant case show that the University was deprived of a remedy that would have
enjoined the Union strike and was left without any recourse except to invoke
the jurisdiction of the [Secretary of Labor]. x
x x, this Court will not allow the no strike, no lockout, grievance machinery
and voluntary arbitration clauses found in CBAs to be circumvented by the
simple expedient of filing a notice of strike or lockout. A similar circumvention made possible
by the inaction of the NCMB on the University’s Motion to Strike Out Notice
of Strike and To Refer the Dispute to Voluntary Arbitration will not be
countenanced. To rule otherwise would render meaningless Articles 261
and 262 of the Labor Code, as amended, as well as the voluntary arbitration
clauses found in CBAs.” (G.R. No. 169632, Decision dated March 28, 2006, pp.
15-19; emphasis supplied.) As far as
Atty. Mae Gellecanao-Laserna is concerned, according to the Supreme Court, as a
former DOLE Regional Director, she cannot feign ignorance of the procedure
observed by DOLE Sheriffs in serving assumption of jurisdiction orders and the
devastating consequences if a union attempts to avoid service or refuses to
immediately return to work upon service of the assumption of jurisdiction
order. “The
sheriff’s report unequivocally stated the union officers’ refusal to receive
the AJO when served on them in the morning of September 19, 2003. The September 16, 2003 Union’s Board
Resolution No. 3 which gave sole authority to its president to receive the AJO
must not be allowed to circumvent the standard operating procedure of the
Office of the Undersecretary for Labor Relations which considers AJOs as duly
served upon posting of copies thereof on designated places. The procedure was adopted in order to prevent
the thwarting of AJOs by the simple expedient of refusal of the parties to
receive the same, as in this case. The
Union cannot feign ignorance of this procedure because its counsel Atty. Mae M.
Gellecanao-Laserna was a former Regional Director of the Department of Labor
and Employment.” (G.R. No. 169632, Decision dated March 28, 2006, p.
10; emphasis supplied.) As a former
DOLE Regional Director and as a legal counsel of the USAEU-FFW, Atty. Mae M.
Gellecanao-Laserna should have advised her clients that (a) the USAEU-FFW Board
Resolution dated September 16, 2003
solely authorizing the Union President to receive the assumption of
jurisdiction order is illegal and useless, (b) the service of the assumption of
jurisdiction order on a Union officer and the posting thereof by the DOLE
Sheriffs constitutes service of said process and (c) the union should
immediately return to work once an assumption of jurisdiction order is deemed
served. Unfortunately, Atty. Mae M. Gellecanao-Laserna did the exact opposite
as observed by the Supreme Court: “x
x x. The Union’s defiance of the AJO was evident in the sheriff’s report: ‘We
went back to the main gate of the University and there NCMB Director Dadivas
introduced us to the Union lawyer, Atty. Mae Lacerna a former DOLE Regional
Director. Atty. Lacerna however refused
to be officially served the Order again pointing to Board Resolution No. 3
passed by the Union officers. Atty.
Lacerna then informed the undersigned Sheriffs that the Union president will
accept the Order at around 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon. Atty. Lacerna told the undersigned Sheriff
that only when the Union president receives the Order at 5:00 p.m. shall the
Union recognize the Secretary of Labor as having assumed jurisdiction over the
labor dispute.” (G.R. No. 169632, Decision dated March 28, 2006, p. 12.) Not mentioned in the Supreme Court decision is the corrupt
intervention that immediately followed the exchange between the DOLE Sheriffs
and Atty. Mae M. Gellecanao-Laserna: “Sheriff
Reyes informed Atty. Lacerna that based on their standard procedure and
practice in serving assumption order, the Union was served the Order as of 8:45
a.m. Sheriff Reyes in fact told Atty.
Lacerna that they no longer has [sic] to stay in Iloilo since the Order had
been served on the Union and the University.
Atty. Lacerna tried to convince the undersigned Sheriffs to deem the
Order served when the Union president received the same at 5:00 p.m. The undersigned Sheriffs respectfully
informed Atty. Lacerna that they cannot agree with her position. At this point, NCMB Director Dadivas
directed the undersigned Sheriffs to wait and serve the Order on the Union
president later in the afternoon. NCMB
Director Dadivas questioned the practice followed by the undersigned Sheriffs
when the Union refused to accept the Order due to a Union Board Resolution.”
(Sheriff’s Report, September 26, 2003, p. 2; emphasis supplied.) Atty.
Laserna tried to argue before the Supreme Court the “well settled practice”
that after an assumption of
jurisdiction order is served, the union has twenty four hours to return to
work. The Supreme Court flatly rejected
this inane argument. “The
Union’s assertion of a well settled practice that the SOLE always gives
twenty four hours (24) to the striking workers within which to return to work,
offers no refuge. Aside from the
fact that this alleged well settled practice has no basis in law and
jurisprudence, Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, supra, is explicit that
if a strike has already taken place at the time of assumption of jurisdiction
or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return
to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit
all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or
lock-out. This is compounded
further by this Court’s ruling which have never interpreted the phrase
‘immediately return to work’ found in Article 263(g) to mean ‘within twenty
four (24) hours.’ On the other hand,
the tenor of these ponencias indicates an almost instantaneous or
automatic compliance for a striker to return to work once an AJO has been duly
served. (G.R. No. 169632, Decision dated March 28, 2006, pp. 12-13;
emphasis supplied.) To this rejection by the Supreme Court the University of San
Agustin adds that the adoption of this “well settled practice” espoused by
Atty. Laserna will only breed further corruption. Finally,
the Supreme Court decision (as did the Court of Appeals) puts in perspective
the on-going strike of the USAEU-FFW which commenced on April 25, 2005. The current strike is illegal. The current strike, allegedly grounded on
union-busting, has no basis. The
termination of the union officers did not amount to union busting as claimed by
these dismissed officers. Their
dismissal was in line with the declaration of the Court of Appeals that as a
result of engaging in an illegal strike, these union officers are deemed to
have lost their employment status. More
importantly, contrary to the claim of these dismissed union officers, their
immediate termination by the University of San Agustin was perfectly legal. In closing,
the University of San Agustin and its administrators trust that in light of the
decision of the Supreme Court, the USAEU-FFW will voluntarily stop its current
(illegal) strike and forthwith clear the strike area of all their strike
paraphernalia and litter. 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
UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN ILOILO
CITY APRIL 1,
2006 |
