October 23, 2015
The democratic system in the Philippines will earn the unenviable reputation, not respect, of allowing former employees of a company to file a notice of strike against their former employer. Worse, the Department of Labor and Employment considers the notice a labor issue. The DOLE has scheduled a conciliation meeting between the group of Gerardo Rivera and 11 of his supporters who were part of 600 workers of Philippine Airlines separated from the service and paid whatever benefits are enshrined in the collective bargaining agreement.
Labor Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz, known for her objectivity in settling labor-management disputes made the fatal mistake of accepting the notice of strike instead of rejecting it outright for the not complicated reason strikers do not have a union because they ceased to be workers of Philippine Airlines. Rivera and his group do not even allege they were forcibly yanked out of their jobs. There is no controversy in their separation from the service. If there were, the retired employees themselves put the issue on ice by accepting retirement benefits.
The first anomaly the DOLE appears to accept is the fact that Rivera called for an election of officers among the retired workers. He claimed he was elected president. A labor arbiter correctly ruled the election of Rivera ”produced no legal consequence.” That should have left the non-issue on ice but Secretary Baldoz is recognizing it and in fact considers the notice a labor issue.
The fact that the workers who are all members of PAL Employees Association (PALEA) have not elected their officers is a clear suggestion there is harmony between management and the employees. How can this harmony be disturbed by a strike of employees who ceased to be members of the union by their separation from the service?
Yes, the 600 retired employees can form an association among themselves for any purpose. But never as members of the union in their former employer.
In fact, they cannot form a union because, if some of them found jobs elsewhere after leaving PAL, they are in the service of several firms. But even if they were in one company they cannot form a union in PAL least of all file a strike notice against the national flag carrier. That company is not Philippine Airlines. One does not have to have too much gray matter between the ears to consider the fact the retired employees ceased to be members of the union in PAL. In fact, the law may prohibit them from considering themselves as members of PALEA because they are not.
There seems to be very little appreciation if there is any at all, of the far-reaching consequences of accepting a notice of strike by a non-union against their former employer. Carried a step farther than conciliation, the decision of the DOLE can bring the harm that strident members of vigilant unions caused their employers.
Many companies have implemented a redundancy program. Benefits were offered to workers long before they are due to retire. They laid their hands on large sums of money. Most of them were young enough to find other jobs elsewhere.
The companies that retired them recovered what they considered was a bloated payroll cost. That is the arithmetic of redundancy retirement. By accepting the notice of strike filed by Gerardo Rivera who is no longer an employee of PAL, is it not possible former members of other unions in other companies can follow what Rivera is doing to PAL?
They may know they will not get anywhere but they succeed in harassing their former employers with the consent of the Department of Labor and Employment. How does this sit in the minds of foreign investors who are attracted to do business in the Philippines? The DOLE should know its decision in the non-existent PALEA union of Gerardo Rivera does not help lure foreign investors to the Philippines.
There is nothing to conciliate. The fairness of or lack of fairness of the demands of Rivera and 11 of his cohorts is immaterial to PAL. Rivera’s group has no employer to strike against, not PAL, anyway. In that sense the members of PALEA who are so because they continue to work for the national flag carrier can bring a case to court challenging Rivera for the use of the union name PALEA. Rivera should recognize the fact he and 600 other employees of the airline ceased to be members of the union when they resigned and accepted an estimated P800 million in retirement and other benefits. On the average each of them were paid more than P1.3 million. They drained the purse of PAL but the airline made good its commitments under the CBA.
Why did Standard Electric and a giant garments company transfer to China? Because their operations were paralyzed by a few hothead members of what they called was their vigilant union.
There has been real and apparent industrial peace in the country during the past five years. They ugly head of strident so-called nationalist union members should not allowed to rear again. The DOLE is unknowingly bringing back the dark days of the economy stymied from growing partly due to troubles brought about or created by strident union members.
Gerardo Rivera, “president” of the non-existent PAL union as far as the 600 retired workers of PAL are concerned, is not even known to be strident. DOLE is simply making him so.
* * * *
email: amadomacasaet@yahoo.com
Labor Secretary Rosalinda Baldoz, known for her objectivity in settling labor-management disputes made the fatal mistake of accepting the notice of strike instead of rejecting it outright for the not complicated reason strikers do not have a union because they ceased to be workers of Philippine Airlines. Rivera and his group do not even allege they were forcibly yanked out of their jobs. There is no controversy in their separation from the service. If there were, the retired employees themselves put the issue on ice by accepting retirement benefits.
The first anomaly the DOLE appears to accept is the fact that Rivera called for an election of officers among the retired workers. He claimed he was elected president. A labor arbiter correctly ruled the election of Rivera ”produced no legal consequence.” That should have left the non-issue on ice but Secretary Baldoz is recognizing it and in fact considers the notice a labor issue.
The fact that the workers who are all members of PAL Employees Association (PALEA) have not elected their officers is a clear suggestion there is harmony between management and the employees. How can this harmony be disturbed by a strike of employees who ceased to be members of the union by their separation from the service?
Yes, the 600 retired employees can form an association among themselves for any purpose. But never as members of the union in their former employer.
In fact, they cannot form a union because, if some of them found jobs elsewhere after leaving PAL, they are in the service of several firms. But even if they were in one company they cannot form a union in PAL least of all file a strike notice against the national flag carrier. That company is not Philippine Airlines. One does not have to have too much gray matter between the ears to consider the fact the retired employees ceased to be members of the union in PAL. In fact, the law may prohibit them from considering themselves as members of PALEA because they are not.
There seems to be very little appreciation if there is any at all, of the far-reaching consequences of accepting a notice of strike by a non-union against their former employer. Carried a step farther than conciliation, the decision of the DOLE can bring the harm that strident members of vigilant unions caused their employers.
Many companies have implemented a redundancy program. Benefits were offered to workers long before they are due to retire. They laid their hands on large sums of money. Most of them were young enough to find other jobs elsewhere.
The companies that retired them recovered what they considered was a bloated payroll cost. That is the arithmetic of redundancy retirement. By accepting the notice of strike filed by Gerardo Rivera who is no longer an employee of PAL, is it not possible former members of other unions in other companies can follow what Rivera is doing to PAL?
They may know they will not get anywhere but they succeed in harassing their former employers with the consent of the Department of Labor and Employment. How does this sit in the minds of foreign investors who are attracted to do business in the Philippines? The DOLE should know its decision in the non-existent PALEA union of Gerardo Rivera does not help lure foreign investors to the Philippines.
There is nothing to conciliate. The fairness of or lack of fairness of the demands of Rivera and 11 of his cohorts is immaterial to PAL. Rivera’s group has no employer to strike against, not PAL, anyway. In that sense the members of PALEA who are so because they continue to work for the national flag carrier can bring a case to court challenging Rivera for the use of the union name PALEA. Rivera should recognize the fact he and 600 other employees of the airline ceased to be members of the union when they resigned and accepted an estimated P800 million in retirement and other benefits. On the average each of them were paid more than P1.3 million. They drained the purse of PAL but the airline made good its commitments under the CBA.
Why did Standard Electric and a giant garments company transfer to China? Because their operations were paralyzed by a few hothead members of what they called was their vigilant union.
There has been real and apparent industrial peace in the country during the past five years. They ugly head of strident so-called nationalist union members should not allowed to rear again. The DOLE is unknowingly bringing back the dark days of the economy stymied from growing partly due to troubles brought about or created by strident union members.
Gerardo Rivera, “president” of the non-existent PAL union as far as the 600 retired workers of PAL are concerned, is not even known to be strident. DOLE is simply making him so.
* * * *
email: amadomacasaet@yahoo.com
source: Malaya
No comments:
Post a Comment