Facts:
The
Union known as Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) said to represent 4,500
employees of San Miguel Corporation, presented to the company a demand for
correction of the significant distortion in wages.
In that demand, the Union explicitly invoked Section 4 of
RA 6727, “The Wage Rationalization Act”, which reads as follows:
Where the application of the increases in the wages rates
under this section results in distortions as defined under existing laws in the
wage structure within an establishment and gives rise to dispute therein, such
dispute shall first be settled voluntarily between the parties and in the event
of a deadlock, the same shall be finally resolved through compulsory
arbitration by the regional branches of the National Labor Relations Commission
having jurisdiction over the workplace.
It shall be mandatory for the NLRC to conduct continuous
hearings and decide any dispute arising under this section within twenty (20)
calendar days from the time said dispute is formally submitted to it for
arbitration. The pendency of a dispute arising from a wage distortion shall not
in any way delay the applicability of the increase in the wage rates prescribed
under this section.
The Union claims that the demand was ignored. When the
Company rejected the reduced proposal of the Union the members thereof, on
their own accord, refused to render overtime services, most especially at the
Beer Bottling Plants at Polo, starting October 16, 1989. In this connection,
the workers involved issues a joint notice reading as follows:
Sama-samang pahayag: Kaming arawang manggagawa ng Polo
Brewery pawang kasapi ng Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) ay nagkakaisang
nagpasya na ipatupad muna ang eight hours work shift pansamantala habang hindi
ipinapatupad ng SMC Management ang tamang Wage Distortion.
Issue:
Whether
or not wage distortion shall be a ground for strike/lockout.
Ruling:
No.
It is
SMC's submittal that the coordinated reduction by the Union's members of the
work time theretofore willingly and consistently observed by them, thereby
causing financial losses to the employer in order to compel it to yield to the
demand for correction of "wage distortions," is an illegal and
"unprotected" activity. It is, SMC argues, contrary to the law and to
the collective bargaining agreement between it and the Union. The argument is
correct and will be sustained.
Among the rights guaranteed to employees
by the Labor Code is that of engaging in concerted activities in order to
attain their legitimate objectives. Article 263 of the Labor Code, as amended,
declares that in line with "the policy of the State to encourage free
trade unionism and free collective bargaining. Workers shall have the right to
engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for
their mutual benefit and protection." A similar right to engage in concerted
activities for mutual benefit and protection is tacitly and traditionally
recognized in respect of employers.
The more common of these concerted
activities as far as employees are concerned are: strikes; picketing; and
boycotts. On the other hand, the counterpart activity that management may
licitly undertake is the lockout. In this connection, the same Article 263
provides that the "right of legitimate labor organizations to strike and
picket and of employer to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall
continue to be recognized and respected." The legality of these activities
is usually dependent on the legality of the purposes sought to be attained and
the means employed therefor.
It goes without saying that these joint or coordinated
activities may be forbidden or restricted by law or contract.
In the particular instance of "distortions of the
wage structure within an establishment" resulting from "the
application of any prescribed wage increase by virtue of a law or wage
order," Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6727 prescribes a specific, detailed
and comprehensive procedure for the correction thereof, thereby implicitly
excluding strikes or lockouts or other concerted activities as modes of
settlement of the issue.
The legislative intent that solution
of the problem of wage distortions shall be sought by voluntary negotiation or
abitration, and not by strikes, lockouts, or other concerted activities of the
employees or management, is made clear in the rules implementing RA 6727 issued
by the Secretary of Labor and Employment pursuant to the authority granted by Section 13 of the
Act. Section
16, Chapter I of these implementing rules, after reiterating the policy that
wage distortions be first settled voluntarily by the parties and eventually by
compulsory arbitration, declares that, "Any issue involving wage distortion shall not be a ground for a
strike/lockout."
No comments:
Post a Comment