Legality of Closed Shop Provisions - Labor 2 Legal Paper

University of the Philippines

COLLEGE OF LAW

Malcolm Hall, Diliman, Q.C.

THE LEGALITY OF CLOSED-SHOP PROVISIONSIN LIGHT OF LAGARDE V.

NLRC:A CRITIQUE

Submitted by:

Naomi Therese F. Corpuz

Maria Lourdes Fugoso - Alcain

Mark Isaak S. Garrido

Catherine S. Panaguiton

Kris Francisco D.Rimban

Submitted to:

Prof. Patricia R.P. SalvadorDaway

1

Law 114 - Labor Relations Law2nd Semester, A.Y. 2010-2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction

…………………………………………………. 1

II. Closed Shop Provisions:Definition, Nature

vis-à-vis the Lagarde

……………………………………………………… 4

III. Pros and Cons of Closed Shop Provisions and

the Lagarde

Case…………………………………………………………..

10

IV. Analysis………………………………………………………

13

V. Conclusion

…………………………………………………. 27

2

VI. Bibliography

………………………………………………... 30

Annex A – Interview Transcript

……………………………….... 34

Annex B – Photo Story

…………………………………………… 50

IN PERSPECTIVE: THE LEGALITY OF CLOSED-SHOP PROVISIONS

IN LIGHT OF LAGARDE V. NLRC

Naomi Therese F. Corpuz****

Maria Lourdes Fugoso - Alcain******

Mark Isaak S. Garrido********

Catherine S. Panaguiton**********

Kris Francisco D. Rimban************

****J.D., University of the Philippines College of Law (2013 expected); B.A. Psychology, University of the Philippines-Diliman (2003).****** J.D., University of the Philippines College of Law (2013 expected; B.S. Social Work, Miriam College (2003).********J.D., University of the Philippines College of Law (2012 expected); B.S. Management, Ateneo de Manila University (2006).**********J.D., University of the Philippines College of Law (2011 expected); B.A. Sociology, University of the Philippines-Diliman (2004).************J.D., University of the Philippines College of Law (2013 expected); B.A. Public Administration, University of the Philippines-Diliman (2007).

3

I. Introduction

The International Container Terminal Services

Incorporated (ICTSI) is a Filipino company that operates and

develops ports both locally and abroad. It was established in

1987 by Mr. Enrique K. Razon, whose family has been in the

port business for decades. In 1988, the Philippine Ports

Authority awarded ICTSI the contract to operate Manila’s North

Harbor.

The Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa Pantalan Inc.-National

Federation of Labor Unions (NMPI-NAFLU) is the only labor

union in the North Harbor for rank-and-file employees. Its

membership is estimated at around 900 and covers all rank-and-

file workers such as stevedores, machine operators and other

general purpose workers.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between

ICTSI and the NMPI-NAFLU is set to expire in 2012. It includes

a “closed-shop” provision.

In July 2005, Union Officers caught the petitioners

Lagarde et. al soliciting the support of other union members in

expelling the incumbent union officers and replacing them with

petitioners themselves. The incumbent officers of the union saw

4

this as acts of disloyalty. The union conducted an investigation

and found the petitioners guilty. They were then expelled from

the union. The union requested the management to

terminate the services of petitioners pursuant to the

closed-shop agreement in their CBA. The management gave

the petitioners an opportunity to explain themselves, but found

their explanations lacking. Upon finding substance in the

allegations of the union, the company dismissed the petitioners

from service.

Petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with

the labor arbiter. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of ICTSI. The

petitioners appealed to the NLRC, CA and SC. All appeals were

denied.

Lagarde vs. NLRC1, the case which was chosen to be the main subject

of this paper, is one of the many cases wherein the rule on the legality of

closed shop provisions has been reiterated and solidified. Congress has

enacted Republic Act No. 875 or The Magna Carta for Labor which

authorizes closed shop provisions.2The Supreme Court, no less, has spoken

and decided on the matter-closed shop provisions are valid and here to stay.

And the Supreme Court, being what it is,its decisions, such as that of the

legality of closed-shop provisions, have the force of law.

1Lagarde v. NLRC, CA-G.R. SP No. 100815.2 Rep. Act No. 875, § 4 (a)(4).

5

Although international law has yet to directly address the legality of

closed shop provisions, leaving the question up to each individual nation3,

the outright banning of countries such as the UK4 and Australia5 of this type

of provisions inspires doubt as to its validity.

It is in relation thereto that the group undertakes to scrutinize the

nature and consequences of closed shop provisions vis-à-vis the

Constitution, existing Labor Laws and international law. What are closed

shop provisions? Do closed shop provisions contravene the rights of workers

under the Constitution, existing Labor Laws and international law that the

Philippines is bound to adhere to? In practice, can these provisions be

subject to abuse? Do requisites for a closed shop provision to be considered

as valid, as elucidated by jurisprudence, provide ample safeguards to

temper possible drawbacks that closed shop provisions may cause? These

and many other corollary questions are addressed in the whole of this

paper, making use of the above-cited Lagarde case and similar cases as

points of interest and illustration.

3 Notably, ILO Conventions have not come out with a clear statement of whether or not closed shop provisions are valid. See"Case(s) No(s). 188, ReportNo. 34 (Denmark): ComplaintsagainsttheGovernmentofDenmarkpresentedbySwissPrintingWorkers' UnionandtheSwissFederationofNationalChristianTradeUnions." Document No. 031960034188,Cases of the Committee on Freedom of Association. International Labor Organization, Mar. 4, 1959.4 All forms of closed shops in the UK are strictly illegal under section 137(1)(a) of the TradeUnionandLabourRelations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52). See UK government’s website available athttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/contents#pt3-pb1-l1g137(last visited Mar. 22, 2011).5 Australia’s Workplace Relations Act, 1996.

6

The significance of workers’ exercise of the right to self-organization6

cannot be overemphasized. Foz even points out that it is the only right

which the new Constitution has expressly repeated in two or three separate

provisions, an indication, no doubt, of its status as a basic, preferred right

of the workers, whether in private or public employment7. And at first

glance, this right is seemingly lawfully curtailed by rulings of the Supreme

Court in favor of validity of closed shop provisions. It is reasonable then that

the validity of closed shop provisions be subjected to further scrutiny as it

was done in this paper.

II. Closed Shop Provisions:Definition, Nature vis-à-vis the Lagarde case

Under the Labor Code, the grounds for termination of employment are

(1) just causes under Art 282; authorized causes under Art. 283; (3)

termination due to disease under Art.284; and (4) termination by the

6CONST. art.XIII, § 3.[Batongbacal states that this right is an adjunct of the fundamental right of the people to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law under Sec. 8, Art. III, 1987 Constitution] See Jay Batongbacal, Promoting Decent Work in the Maritime Industry in the Philippines: Focus on the Overseas Filipino Seafarer: A Study for the International Labor Organization, Nov. 2002, p. 15. [Self-organization of workers has metamorphosed into a specifically protected right. What used to be a general provision on the right of the people to freely associate with one another for lawful purposes under the Bill of Rights, now emphasizes the right of workers to organize labor unions. In other words, the provision has been given a definite labor slant] 7 Vicente Foz,Constitutional Dimensions of the Right to Self-Organization,available athttp://www.filipiniana.net/publication/constitutional-dimensions-of-the-right-to-self-organization/12791881625614/1/0(last visited Mar. 22, 2011).

7

employee or resignation under Art. 285.8 In addition, a closed-shop

provision is another cause for termination recognized in our jurisdiction.9

Now what is a closed-shop provision? Malayang Manggagawa ng Ang

Tibay vs. Ang Tibay10 and National Labor Union vs. Aguinaldo’s Echangue

Inc.11 provide its definition:

“A closed-shop agreement is an agreement whereby an employer binds himself to hire only members of the contracting union who must continue to remain members in good standing to keep their jobs.” (Emphasis supplied)

General Milling Corporation v. Casi12 and Inguillo v. First Philippine

Scales13 elucidated this concept further:

“It is also an enterprise in which, by agreement between the employer and his employees or their representatives, no person may be employed in any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise unless he or she is, becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement, remains a member in good standing of a union entirely comprised of or of which the employees in interest are a part.” (Emphasis supplied)

This type of agreement is valid and legal in the Philippines. Congress,

in the exercise of its policy-making power had chosen to approve the closed-

8 General Milling Corporation v. Casi, G.R. No. 149552, Mar. 10, 2010; Alabang Country Club, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. 170287, Feb. 14, 2008.9 Alabang Country Club, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. 170287, Feb. 14, 2008, citingDel Monte Philippines v. Saldivar, GR No. 158620, 504 SCRA 192, Oct. 11, 2006.10Malayang Manggagawa ng Ang Tibay vs. Ang Tibay, G.R. No. L-8259, Dec. 23, 1957.11National Labor Union vs. Aguinaldo’s Echangue Inc., G.R. No. L-7358, May 31, 1955.12Supra Note 8.13Inguillo v. First Philippine Scales, G.R. No. 165407, 588 SCRA 471, Jun. 5, 2009.

8

shop.14 It has been said to be very effective form of union security

agreement15 that it is embodied by Article 248 of the present Labor Code

which provides:

“It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice:

(e) To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment, except those employees who are already members of another union at the time of signing of the collective bargaining agreement. xxx (Emphasis supplied).”

A closed-shop provision does not violate the right to self-organization.

Such a right which is recognized and guaranteed in our Constitution is not

absolute and it is limited by the union security clauses of a CBA, such as a

closed-shop provision. The Supreme Court has held several times that a

closed-shop provision is not a restriction of the right of freedom of

association guaranteed by the Constitution16. Ang Malayang Mangagawa ng

Ang Tibay17 aptly explains:

14 Congress has legalized closed shop provisions when it passed Republic Act No. 875 or The Magna Carta for Labor when it found valid “any agreement of the employer with a labor organization requiring membership in such organization as a condition of employment” [Rep. Act No. 875, § 4 (a)(4)]. 15Supra Note 11.16Lirag Textile Mills, Inc v. Epifanio D.Blanco & CIR, G.R. No.L-27029, Nov. 12, 1981, citing Manalang v. Artex Dev. Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-20432, 21 SCRA 562, Oct. 30, 1967. 17Malayang Mangagawa ng Ang Tibay, G.R. No, L-8259, Dec. 23, 1957.

9

“x x x Such a stipulation (closed-shop) is not only necessary to maintain loyalty and preserve the integrity of the union but is also allowed by our Magna Carta when it provided that, while it is recognized that an employee shall have the right to self-organization and join any labor organization, it at the same time postulated that such right "shall not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein" [Section 4 (b), paragraph 1, Republic Act 875]. This provision is significant. It is an indirect restriction on the right of an employee to self organization. It is a solemn pronouncement of a policy that while all employee is given the right to join a labor organization, such right should only be asserted in a manner that will not spell the destruction of the same organization. The law requires loyalty to the union on the part of its members in order to obtain to the full extent its cohesion and integrity. We therefore see nothing improper in the disputed provisions of the collective bargaining agreement entered into between the parties…” (Emphasis supplied).

Even assuming arguendo that employees are unaware of a closed-

shop agreement stipulated in a union’s CBA, ignorance of the law

excuses no one. Neither their ignorance of, nor their dissatisfaction with,

its terms and conditions would justify breach thereof or the formation by

them of a union of their own.18 In fact, union security clauses, that include

closed-shop agreements uphold the principle of sanctity or inviolability of

contracts guaranteed by the Constitution.19

18Manalang v. Artex Dev. Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-20432, 21 SCRA 562, Oct. 30, 1967. 19Victoria Milling Co. Inc v. Victoria-Manapla Workers Organization, G.R. No. L-18467, Sept. 30, 1967.

10

This (collective bargaining) agreement (containing closed shop

provisions) is subject to the requisite that the labor organization properly

represents the employees though (Words in brackets supplied)20. In

addition, though closed-shop provisions are a valid cause of dismissal, this

must not be done hastily or summarily.21Procedural and substantive due

process requirements must be complied with before an employee is

dismissed on the ground of a valid closed shop provision. 22 Two aspects

which characterizes the concept of due process under the Labor Code: one

is substantive – whether the termination of employment was based on the

provision of the Labor Code in accordance with the prevailing

jurisprudence; the other is procedural – the manner in which the dismissal

was affected, 23 that is, the employee sought to be dismissed must be given

an opportunity to be heard and the employer must not rely solely upon the

request of the union24.

20 National Labor Union v. Aguinaldo’s Echague, Inc, G.R. No. L-7358, May 31, 1955; Tolentino v. Angeles, G.R. No. L-8150, 52 O.G. 4262, May 30, 1956; Confederated Sons of Labor v. Anakan Lumber Co., G.R. No. L-12503, Apr. 20, 1960, Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. v. National Employees Workers Security Union, G.R. No. L-2003, 53 O.G. 615, Dec. 21, 1956. 21 Carino v. NLRC, G.R. No. 91086, 185 SCRA 177, May 8, 1990.22 [Although the Supreme Court has ruled that union security clauses embodied in the collective bargaining agreement may be validly enforced and that dismissals pursuant thereto may likewise be valid, this does not erode the fundamental requirement of due process] See Malayang Samahan ng Mga Mangagawa sa M.Greenfiled (MSMG-UWP) v. Ramos, G.R. No. 113907, Feb. 28, 2000. 23General Milling Corporation v. Casi, G.R. No. 149552, Mar. 10, 2010, citing Inguillo v. First Philippine Scales, Inc., G.R. No. 165407, 588 SCRA 471, Jun. 5, 2009. 24Tropical Hut Employees’ Union-CGW v. Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc, G.R. No.L-43495-99, Jan. 20, 1990; Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union c. Liberty Cotton Mills, G.R. No. L-33187, 66 SCRA 512, Sep. 4, 1975; Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Co., Inc v. Philipine Asoociation of Free Labor Unions, G.R. No. L-18782, 8 SCRA 700, Aug. 29, 1963,

11

To elucidate how in a case these procedural and substantive due

process requirements are complied with, the Lagarde case, which is the

model case for this paper, is illustrative.

To show that there was compliance of procedural due process, the

following facts were proven:

1. Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa Pantalan ng ICTSI – NAFLU

(hereinafter “NMPI-NAFLU” for brevity) sent petitioner-employees

Notices to Explain on charges of union disloyalty which petitioners

either refused to accept or accepted under protest. They were

deemed to have waived their right to be heard for their failure to

appear before Grievance Committee of NMPI-NAFLU to explain their

side. Thereafter, NMPI-NAFLU validly expelled petitioners for

committing acts constituting disloyalty based on the evidence at hand

and in accordance with the union’s Constitution and By-Laws (CBL).

2. Respondent-employer ICTSI, for its part, accorded petitioners

procedural due process by conducting its own investigation before

dismissing petitioners from employment pursuant to the Union

Security Clause of the CBA.

3. In particular, respondent ICTSI gave petitioners an opportunity

to be heard through the memos it sent to the latter. Petitioners

thereafter submitted their Joint-Explanation to respondent ICTSI.

Afterwhich, NMPI-NAFLU submitted its Letter Comment to

petitioners’ Joint Explanation. 12

4. After weighing the evidence and arguments of both the

petitioners and NMPI-NAFLU, respondent ICTSI issued the notices of

dismissal and terminated the services of the petitioners because the

later were validly expelled from NMPI-NAFLU for committing acts

constituting disloyalty25.

To show that petitioner-employees with substantive due process, the

following were alleged by ICTSI and proven:

1. First, they were found to have plans of overthrowing of the current

leadership of NMPI-NAFLU. This was evidenced by the first document in

the form of petition/signature campaign confiscated from petitioner

Barriaga which illegally and unilaterally unseated the current union

leadership for allegedly having been convicted of a crime involving moral

turpitude with respect to the disposition of union funds.

2. Second, petitioners likewise made attempts to revive NMPI-

Independent with the intention of unseating and rivaling NMPI-NAFLU as

the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of

respondent ICTSI because the same was done outside the freedom period

through the document confiscated from petitioner Barriaga.

3. NMPI-Independent has long ceased to exist by virtue of the

ruling of Secretary of Labor in her Resolution dated 13 July 2001.

25Supra Note 113

Considering such, the petitioners sought to reactivate NMPI-

Independent although they knew that it has ceased to exist26.

To reiterate, in terminating the employment of an employee by

enforcing the union security clause, the employer needs to prove that: (1)

the union security clause is applicable; (2) the union is requesting for the

enforcement of the union security provision in the CBA; (3) there is

sufficient evidence to support the union’s decision to expel the employee

from the union.27

Based on the foregoing, the court ruled in the Lagarde case that

respondent ICTSI complied with the above-requirements and with its duty

to ensure that the petitioners were accorded due process before they were

dismissed from employment pursuant to their Constitution and By-Laws28.

The dismissal was also consistent with the CBA between NMPI-NAFLU and

respondent ICTSI which contained a closed-shop provision requiring

membership in the exclusive bargaining agent as a condition for continued

26Id.27 General Milling Corporation v. Casi, G.R. No. 149552, Mar. 10, 2010; Alabang Country Club, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. 170287, Feb. 14, 2008. 28 Article 4, Section 4 provides the grounds for expulsion of a union member, to wit: a) Utter disrespect (in any form) to any of the members of the Executive, Board of Directors and Shop Stewards; Member/s who foster acts/action to divide/disunity among the union members; For subscribing to a cause against the declared principles laid down in the constitution and f) For gross misconduct unbecoming highly of a union member.

14

employment.29 This case may be referred to by any one who wants to argue

for the validity of closed shop provisions.

III. Pros and Cons of Closed Shop Provisions and the Lagarde Case

Pros: Closed Shop Provisions from the Management Perspective (ICTSI)

The ICTSI and the union NMPI-NAFLU have a union security clause in

their CBA. This is a result of the evolution of their relationship from violent

and adversarial to a state of almost perfect harmony.

Atty. Michael Ranier Alcazar, industrial relations superintendent of

ICTSI explained that during the early years of ICTSI, the tension between

the union and the company was very high. The relationship was

29 Sections 1 and 4, Article III of the CBA provides that: [Section 1. Subject to company policy, rules and regulations respecting hiring, the company agrees that during the lifetime of this Agreement Section 1. Subject to company policy, rules and regulations respecting hiring, the company agrees that during the lifetime of this Agreement, the UNION shall supply the COMPANY with sufficient help to perform present and future work contemplated within the position coverage listed under Article II above, and only members of the UNION shall be engaged by the COMPANY to fill such positions. Membership in the UNION shall not be a condition for employment at the time of hiring of office employees who shall occupy positions covered by this Agreement. However, memberships in the UNION shall commence from their first day of regular employment and shall be a condition for their continued employment.xxx Section 4. The COMPANY shall within thirty (30) days after such notice, discharge any employee or worker who ceased to be a union member in good standing upon the UNION's proof of prior compliance with the due process requirement of the law. The COMPANY reserves the right to deny the request if in its judgment, the requirement of due process has not been adequately complied with by the UNION.” (emphasis supplied)

15

antagonistic and filled with contempt and mutual distrust. A dialogue

between the parties was rare and an agreement even more so.

Sometime in 2001, the labor landscape at the North Pier underwent a

gradual change for the better. It started with a series of labor-management

cooperation seminars held by UP School of Labor and Industrial Relations

(UP SOLAIR) Dean Jose Gatchalian.

In these seminars, Dean Gatchalian taught them that the relationship

between labor and management need not be antagonistic. He introduced

the concept of labor-management partnership which shifted the perspective

on labor from one where there are two parties looking after their own

interest to one where both the labor and management recognizes the

other’s importance in the continued success of the enterprise. Atty. Alcazar

says this gave rise to their present success and harmony.

The ICTSI-NMPI relationship was so harmonious, it is the recognized

model case for labor-management cooperation. ICTSI management and the

Union officers are often the resource persons in labor-management

seminars all over the country. As a testament to their successful

relationship they were awarded the Employer’s Confederation of the

Philippines (ECOP) Outstanding Achievement for Industrial Peace in 2009.

They have exerted efforts to maintain the peace and harmony. They

often hold dialogues and often defer to the other’s request. They agreed on

a closed-shop provision to further maintain their good terms.

16

According to Atty. Alcazar the closed-shop provision was a way

of preserving their chemistry and mutual trust. It is also a token of

goodwill by the management.

The ICTSI implementation of the closed-shop takes Union Security a

step further. The ICTSI hires new employees through the union instead of

hiring them on their own. In this arrangement, the management asks the

union president to provide him with recommended people for certain

vacancies. The management hires only from those recommended by the

union.

This arrangement serves both the management and the union. For

the management, it saves them the trouble of hiring people from outside.

For the union, it ensures that all new employees are those trusted by the

union. This limits the external forces that can potentially disturb the peace

between the company and the union.

The company and the union plan to retain the closed-shop provision after

their CBA expires in 2012.30

The above shows closed-shop provisions on a positive note.

Jurisprudence and commentaries further discuss the importance of holding

closed shop provisions to be valid since these ‘increase the strength and

bargaining power of labor organizations, prevents non-union workers from

sharing in the benefits of the union's activities without also sharing its

obligations, prevents the weakening of labor organizations by

30 See Annex “A” of this paper, Interview Transcript.17

discrimination against union members, eliminates the lowering of standards

caused by competition with non-union workers, enables labor organization

effectively to enforce collective agreements, facilitates the collection of dues

and the enforcement of union rules, creates harmonious relations between

the employer and employees.’31

Cons: Closed Shop Provisions from the Laborers’ Point of View (Lagarde et.

al.)

On the other hand, the petitions, appeals and comments of

petitioners, specifically Ireneo A. Lagarde, Eddie Rabino, Ernesto Dy,

Urbano Lazona, Roberto Barriga, Delio Aceron and Crisanda Palada

(Lagarde et. al.), all written in Filipino, maintain, that there exists no just

cause for their termination32. They argue that the Union Security Clause in

their CBA is unconstitutional for it violates Section 4 of the Bill of Rights on

freedom of speech and of the press33. It was even viewed by the Petitioners

that it is a form of abuse of management prerogative and a form of

meddling with intra-union affairs where issues must only be resolved among

them within the union34. As the Petitioners, many objections on the closed-

shop provisions raised coincide with the arguments set forth by Francisco

31National Labor Union v. Aguinaldo’s Echague, Inc, G.R. No. L-7358, May 31, 1955 citing Francisco, Labor Law, p. 180.32Lagarde v. ICTSI, NLRC NCR CA No. 049478-06; Lagarde v. NLRC, CA-G.R. SP No. 100815.33Id.34See “Appendix B” of this paper, Sagot ng mga Complainant sa Comment/Oppostition ng Private Respondent ICTSI, CA – GR. SP No. UDK-5813

18

against a closed-shop, namely: result in monopolistic domination of

employment by labor organization, interfere with the freedom of contract

and personal liberty of the individual worker, compel employers to

discharge all non-union workers regardless of efficiency, length of service,

etc., facilitate the use of labor organizations by unscrupulous union leaders

for the purpose of extortion, restraint of trade, etc., deny to non-union

workers equal opportunity for employment and enable unions to charge

exorbitant dues and initiation fee.35

IV. Analysis

In the Lagarde case, various points supporting and rejecting closed

shop provisions were raised by both parties, all persuasive and legally

sound. However, as the parties have their own interests that they wanted to

pursue in formulating such arguments, they looked at these provisions in a

one-sided manner. It becomes necessary thenthat there be a deeper

analysis of points for and against closed shop provisions in relation to its

nature, characteristics and effects upon the workers, the employer and the

industry as a whole, an objective standpoint as this paper attempts to do.

This way, sound recommendations, in legal and practical sense, may be

made on their formulation and implementation or even outright rejection.

35Supra Note 3019

Closed Shop Provisions: The Downside

Closed Shop Provisions Violate the Constitution and Philippine laws

A. Labor as a Property Right

As early as 1872 in the Slaughter House cases, United States

jurisprudence have established that labor is a property right and therefore

merits protection36. In the Philippines, Art. III, Sec. 1grants constitutional

protection to an individual’s property rights, to wit:

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

In practical terms, if labor is property, then an individual can be

lawfully deprived of it only after he is granted due process. As a

constitutionally protected right, it should not be denied on mere speculation

of any similar or unclear nebulous basis37. The question then becomes how

much process is due to a laborer before he can be legally dismissed from

employment because of a closed-shop agreement in the CBA.

A CBA is the law between the company and the union and as such,

both parties are obliged to comply with its terms. But compliance with the

terms does not justify violations of employees’ rights to procedural due

36 Slaughter House Cases, 83 US 36.37 Sagales v. Rustans, G.R. No. 166554, Nov. 27, 2008.

20

process. In the implementation of the CBA, the parties should see to it that

no rights are violated or impaired.38

Procedural due process consists of the twin the requirements of

notice and hearing. But in Labor cases, much like in administrative

proceedings, hearing does not require a full blown trial. It is enough that a

person be allowed the opportunity to communicate his position. The

requirements of due process would be met if he is accorded the chance to

explain himself39.

In dismissing an employee pursuant to a union security clause, the

requirements are simply that 1) There is a union security clause; 2) the

union is requesting the enforcement of such clause and; 3) that there is

sufficient ground to expel the employee from the union40. While an

investigation by the management is required to determine the validity of

expulsion it is ultimately the management’s discretion to decide whether or

not there is sufficient evidence.

This makes the union security clauses such as a closed-shop provision

susceptible to abuse, especially if there is a collusion or connivance

between the labor and the management. A worker who has fallen out of the

good graces of some union officers may be terminated arbitrarily. Illegal

dismissals maybe perpetuated and allowed under the guise of union

security.

38 Alex Ferrer v. NLRC, G.R. No. 100898, Jul. 5, 1993.39Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC, 198 SCRA 748, (1991).40 Alabang Country Club vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 170287, Feb. 14, 2008.

21

In spite of these, the court has upheld the validity of closed-shop

provisions. Even the labor code itself refers to it as a valid ground for

terminating employees.

In an ideal situation, a closed-shop would be a powerful tool for

balancing the rights and interests of labor and management. But the

situation in the Philippines is far from ideal. Collusion between labor and

management is not far-fetched and hapless workers might suffer under the

whims of vengeful union officers.

Relations between union members will also come into play. It is not

uncommon for an ordinary worker, as a member of a union to experience

animosity with his co-members in the same union, such as what happened in

Lagarde v. NLRC.

It is noteworthy that what can be gleaned from their pleadings are

criticisms and antagonism against their present union officials. In their

petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, they claim that there are

certain union funds found by the audit examiner not properly accounted for

by the union officials.

They allege that they demanded their officials to remit the funds in

favor of the union, but these officials failed to do so. They further allege

that such failure is what pushed them to conduct the signature campaign by

soliciting the support of other union members in expelling the incumbent

union officers.

22

In the end, their acts of protecting their rights as union members

were regardedas acts of disloyalty, seeking to revive the former union

NMPI-Independent. The Court of Appeals sided with the respondents in

ruling that the above acts committed by the petitioners foster disunity

among union members and disrespect to NMPI-NAFLU and thus, were

validly expelled from the union .

Though their allegation was found without merit, it is an undeniable

fact that strained relations among union members themselves in NMPI-

NAFLU occur.

B. Closed shop provisions violate workers’ right to equal protection of

laws, due process, freedom of association, and to choose his own

religion. The Non-Impairment of Contracts Clause in the

Constitution is not absolute. Closed shop provisions may be struck

down on the ground of Public Interest.

Article 1700 of the Civil Code states:

The relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Therefore, such contracts are subject to the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects. (With emphasis supplied).

23

This means that the employer and workers, as contractual parties are not

free to enter into contracts without regulation. Jurisprudence provides that

parties are not at liberty to insulate themselves and their relationships from

the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply contracting with each

other41, hence Art. 1700 states categorically that “contracts are subject to

the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts,

closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar

subjects.”

Article 1700 however seemingly contradicts another article on labor in

the the Civil Code. Art. 1702 also states:

In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer (With emphasis supplied).

As reiterated several times in Supreme Court decisions, in case of

doubt, the terms of a contract should be construed in favor of

labor.42This stance is in accord with Article 4 of the Labor Code of the

Philippines, which resolves that all doubts in the interpretation of the law

and its implementing rules and regulations shall be construed in favor of

41 Pakistan Airlines Corporation v. Ople, G.R. No. 61594 Sep. 28, 1990; Magsalin v. National Organization of Working Men, 451 Phil. 254, May 9, 2003; Bernardo v. NLRC, 369 Phil. 443, Jul. 12, 1999.42Philippine Federation of Credit Cooperatives, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121071, Dec. 11, 1998.

24

labor43. Needless to state, our jurisprudence is rich with decisions adhering

to the State's basic policy of extending protection to Labor where

conflicting interests between labor and management exist44.

Not only the Labor Code provides this similar position, but our very

own Philippine Constitution, the fundamental law of the land provides that

the State must ensure the prosperity and independence of a nation and free

the people from poverty by promoting full employment45 and shall protect

the rights of workers and promote their welfare46. As the policy of the

Labor Code provides that the State must promote full employment and

ensure equal work opportunities47, the Philippine Constitution provides

this similar import in promoting social justice and human rights48.

Guijarno v. CIR49 which ruled reinstatement of employees despite

existence of a closed-shop provision supports this further:

xxx under the 1935 Constitution, to "afford protection to labor, especially to working women and minors ... ."That is to carry out the purpose implicit in one of the five declared principles, namely, the promotion of social justice "to insure the well-being and economic security of all the people... ."It is then the individual employee, as a separate, finite human being, with his problems and his

43Aquino v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 87653, 206 SCRA 118, Feb. 11, 1992.44Supra note 345CONST. art. II, § 9.46Id.§ 1847LAB.CODE, art. 3. 48CONST. art. III, § 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all (emphasis supplied).49Guijarno v. CIR, G.R. Nos. L-28791-93, Aug. 27, 1973.

25

needs, who must be attended to. He is the beneficiary of the concern thus made manifest by the fundamental law. The present Constitution is even more explicit on the matter. The principle that the State shall promote social justice is categorically based on the concept of insuring "the dignity, welfare, and security of all the people." Insofar as the provision on the State affording protection to labor is concerned, it is further required to "promote full employment and equality in employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race, or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work." (With emphasis supplied).

If this is the import of the Philippine Constitution as shown in the case

of Guijarno penned by Justice Conception, “Where does that leave a

labor union?,” as the latter further states. The honorable justice

answered his own question though:

xxx Correctly understood, it (labor union) is nothing but the means of assuring that such fundamental objectives would be achieved. It is the instrumentality through which an individual laborer who is helpless as against a powerful employer may, through concerted effort and activity, achieve the goal of economic well-being. That is the philosophy underlying the Industrial Peace Act50. (With emphasis supplied)

It is the labor union therefore which must protect the employee in the

furtherance of his rights. However, considering the past and current

situation in the Philippines, where strikes and lock outs are apparent and

antagonistic relations occur and reoccur it is inevitable, even impossible,

50Supra note 926

that a perfect and a peaceful co-existence not only between employer and

employee but also among workers themselves can forever take place. It is

not uncommon for an ordinary worker, as a member of a union to

experience animosity with his co-members in the same union, such as what

happened in Lagarde v. NLRC.

Although petitioners Lagarde et.al.lost in their case in all branches,

from the labor arbiter, to the NLRC until the Court of Appeals, it is

noteworthy that what can be gleaned in their pleadings are criticisms and

antagonism against their present union officials. In their petition for

certiorari51 in the Court of Appeals, they claim that there are certain union

funds found by the audit examiner not properly accounted for by the union

officials. They allege that they demanded their officials to remit the funds in

favor of the union but failed to do so. By such failure, as they allege further,

is what pushed them to conduct the signature campaign by soliciting the

support of other union members in expelling the incumbent union officers52.

Their acts were found to be acts of disloyalty seeking to revive the

former union NMPI-Independent which was found by the Court of Appeals

to foster disunity among union members and disrespect to NMPI-NAFLU

and thus were expelled from the union53. Though their allegation was found

without merit, it is an undeniable fact that strained relations among union

members themselves in NMPI-NAFLU occur.

51Petition for Certiorari of Ireneo Lagarde et. al with Court of Appeals, Republic of the Philippines.52Supra note 11.53Supra note 1.

27

Their expulsion and termination was a majority decision of the union

members, and as a consequence, by virtue of the closed shop provision, they

were terminated. This shows that Lagarde et. al. are part of the minority.

This then drives us to the point in question - how then can equal work

opportunities be afforded to all workers, whether they are a part of the

minority or majority, if a closed shop provisionlimits this State policy

mandated not only by the Labor Code but also by the Constitution?

It can be argued that the minority must adhere to the majority, but

Justice Concepcion counters and aptly explains in Guijarno:

It could happen, though, that such a stipulation (closed shop provision) which assures further weight to a labor union at the bargaining table could be utilized against minority groups or individual members thereof. There are indications that such a deplorable situation did so manifest itself here. Respondent Court, it would appear, was not sufficiently alert to such a danger. What is worse, it paid no heed to the controlling doctrine which is merely a recognition of a basic fact in life, namely, that power in a collectivity could be the means of crushing opposition and stifling the voices of those who are in dissent. The right to join others of like persuasion is indeed valuable. An individual by himself may feel inadequate to meet the exigencies of life or even to express his personality without the right to association being vitalized. It could happen though that whatever group may be in control of the organization may simply ignore his most-cherished desires and treat him as if he counts for naught. The antagonism between him and the group becomes marked. Dissatisfaction if given expression may be labeled disloyalty. In the labor field, the union under such circumstances may no longer be a haven of refuge, but indeed as much of a potential foe as management itself. Precisely with the Anakan doctrine, such an undesirable

28

eventuality has been sought to be minimized, if not entirely avoided54.

All laborers whether they are a part of the majority or minority, only

have their work as their livelihood to provide for their families. Their

livelihood is a property right that the State must protect55. A laborer’s

critical attitude towards his union should not take away his very source of

income and bread and butter.

A critical attitude towards a union comes to play in many forms. A

laborer’s religion for instance compels him to disaffiliate from his union,

which is a guaranteed right as in the case of Reyes v. Trajano56. If

religious freedom is a constitutional right, how can a closed-shop

provision then be valid if the laborer is compelled to affiliate with a

union?

In relation to this, the closed-shop provision in Art. 248 of the Labor

Code was taken from the Industrial Peace Act, where in such law the

proviso in Sec. 4, par. (a)(4) reads as follows:

54Supra note 955 A profession, trade of calling is a property right within the meaning of our constitutional guarantees. One cannot be deprived of the right to work and right to make a living because these rights are property rights, the arbitrary and unwarranted deprivation of which normally constitutes an actionable wrong. (JMM Promotion and Management Inc, and Kary International Inc.er v. CA .R. No. 120095, Aug. 5, 1996,citing Phil. Movie Workers' Assn. v. Premier Productions, Inc., 92 Phil 8423 (1953); National Labor Union vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 68 Phil 732 (1939). 56Reyes v. Trajano, G.R. No. 84433, Jun 2, 1992.

29

That nothing in this Act or in any other Act or statute of the Republic of the Philippines shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization to require as a condition of employment membership therein, if such labor organization is the representative of the employees as provided in Section twelve, but such agreement shall not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor organization. (As amended by Republic Act No. 3350 (1961) amending the Industrial Peace Act, RA No. 875) (Words in brackets and emphasis supplied).

However, it is noteworthy that this provision was replicated except

the words on religious freedom (emphasizedabove) in Art. 248 of the

Labor Code, our current provision on closed-shop.This therefore gives

reason to doubt the authors of Art. 248, whom we are inclined to think, had

their shortcomings in overlooking such vested constitutional right.

C. Closed Shop Provisions as an Exception to the right to freedom of

association in Ang Malayang Mangagawa ng Ang Tibay57is logically

unsound and questionable.

As previously discussed, the rule is that workers have the right to

choose as to what labor organizations they want to belong to. However, an

exception to this rule is carved out to give way to the exercise of the right of

labor unions to ‘prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition

or retention of membership therein’.58The restriction of this right to

57Supra Note 21.58Id.

30

give way to Republic 875’s mandate was declared in Ang Malayang

Mangagawa ng Ang Tibay59.

This appears is unconvincing as it is logically questionable and legally

unsound. A better argument can be made in the aforecited case. The

provision in R.A. 875 (now found in Art. 249 (a) of the Labor Code) talks

about the labor unions’ right to prescribe its own rules to acquisition or

retention of membership. This right ought to have limitations though, else,

labor unions will have free reign to choose rules that may impair and may

deter the free exercise of workers’ constitutional rights. The Labor Code is

a legislative enactment and should it contravene the Constitution in any

circumstance, the latter of course, holds Supreme. Further, the

contravention of the constitutional principle of non-impairment of contracts

in this case is of no matter. The right to full and unhampered exercise of the

freedom to associate is such an integral part of our democratic system, now

that we are in the post-Martial Law era. It is a matter of Public Policy that

this right be exercised fully at all times, even if they impair the rights

arising out of existing contracts such as an Employer-Labor Union CBA.

Hence, even if the agreement between the unions and the employer

include such provision and these contracts have the force of law between

the parties, these have to be struck down as invalid because the

Constitution says so. The right of labor organizations to prescribe its own

rules is not an unbridled power. Public interest may override the exercise of

59Id.31

this right. If it is shown that the organization uses this provision to impair

the exercise of employees of their constitutional rights and deprive them of

benefits to further the organization’s and the management’s own interests,

their validity ought to be immediately negated.

The effect of dismissal on the ground of violation of closed shop provision

run contrary to existing procedural rules

The issues of termination on the ground of closed shop provisions are

based on violation of members of existing rules of a labor organization. As

shown in the Lagarde case, dismissals on this ground may also involve

issues in intra-union disputes. The Labor Code provides that the Labor

Arbiter and the NLRC may only decide illegal dismissal cases. They do not

have jurisdiction on intra-union disputes.Disputes of this kind are within the

jurisdiction of the BLR (Bureau of Labor Relations) and

the Labor Relations Divisions in the regional offices of the

Department of Labo60 When an employee is illegally dismissed on the

ground of violation of closed shop provisions, and his defense predicated on

existing issues with the union and/or leaders’ acts that may fall within the

definition of a labor dispute, hence, the NLRC may be compelled to also

look into intra-union dispute issues. These type of issues under the Labor

Code does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. This puts

60LAB.CODE.art. 226.32

more doubt the legality of closed shop provisions as it is not in full accord

with existing rules on procedure.

In, finding Closed shop provisions valid, the Philippines may be said to be

violating International Law.

The Philippines has signed and ratified the International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights61 and the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights62. Corollarily, it is also a member of the ILO

(International Labor Organization) and ratified ILO Convention C87 or the

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention

of 1948.63By virtue of Art.II, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution, these

61 Art. 8, § 1 (a) of the said Covenant provides that: “(a) The right of everyone to form trade unions and join the trade union of his choice, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, for the promotion and protection of his economic and social interests. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”. It was Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 and entered into force on entry into force 3 January 1976. The Philippines ratified the Covenant on 7 Jun 1974. See United Nations Treaties website available at http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4&lang=en (last visited Apr. 3, 2011).62 Art. 22 (a) of the Covenant states that: 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Corollarily, Article 22 (b) in the same Covenant provides that: “2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in their exercise of this right.” This covenant was Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI)of 16 December 1966 and entered into force 23 March 1976. The Philippines ratified the Covenant on 23 Oct 1986. See United nations Treaties website available athttp://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en (last visited 3Apr. 3, 2011).63 Art. 2 of the Convention states that: “Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous

33

http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en




instruments provide the Philippines’ duty to uphold the workers and

laborers’ right to freedom of association, to be exercised free from any

interference.As previously argued, closed shop provisions impair the full

exercise of the workers’ right to freely associate and join organizations of

their own choosing. The above then indubitably shows that in upholding the

validity of closed shop provisions, the Philippines is violating international

law and such violation is legally sanctioned in the domestic fora.

Closed Shop Provisions: The Upside

McCarthy64 and Morris’65 studies yield that it was in industries subject

to casualisation and high turnover rates, such as stevedoring and

construction that the closed shop originally arose. When the business is of

such nature that voluntary recruitment difficult, a closed shop may be the

only viable option. ICTSI is engaged in business of such nature, hence, this

may be evidence showing that their turning into closed shop provisions is

justified.

There is a common adage saying that ‘there is always strength in

numbers.’ Applying this to closed shop provisions, as members of a

bargaining unit are compelled to join one labor organization, there are more

people who are able to band together to fight for better wages, hours of

authorisation.” The Philippines ratified this convention on 29 December 1953. ILO website available athttp://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/ratifce.pl?C087 (last visited Apr. 3, 2011).64 McCarthy, W.E.J. The Closed Shop in Britain, Basil Blackwell, Oxford(1964).65 Morris, R. The Employer's Free Selection of Labour and the Waterfront Closed Shop, Journal of Industrial Relations, pp. 49-62, (1981).

34

http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/ratifce.pl?C087

work, and terms and conditions of employment which puts it in a better

bargaining position than a labor organization with a smaller numbered

organization.

Furthermore, as labor unions with closed shop agreements have been

shown to have longer lives than those who have not and maintain a closer

working relationship with the employer, they are able to bargain for better

terms in the agreement in a speedier and smoother manner than those who

have strained relations with the employer.As Metcalf in a review of the

British evidence stated: 'The closed shop is the key to extra pay for union

members'.66

More importantly, closed shop agreements have been said to reduce

militancy and ensure a more harmonious working relationship with the

employer. When employees are forced to join the union, the less militant

members will tend to 'dilute' the influence of the strong willed militants

within the union.67

As earlier discussed in ICTSI’s case, the nineties (1990s) was a

turbulent time for competing labor unions in ICTSI. Tensions ran high and

there were allegedly plenty of acts of violence committed between members

of these unions against each other and the management, even reported

murders, wherein union officers were gunned down near their homes after

every year. When ICTSI finally sat down with the unions and former

66 Metcalf, D. Trade Unions and Economic Performance: The British Evidence, LSE Quarterly, 3(1989).67Gianni Zappala,The Closed Shop: Help or Hindrance in the Union Movement?available athttp://www.wrc.org.au/documents/WP09.pdf (last visited Apr. 3, 2011).

35

http://www.wrc.org.au/documents/WP09.pdf

SOLAIR dean Gatchalian conducted labor-management cooperation

seminars, this is when the relationship between labor and the management

started to be more stable, until it is now in the harmonious state in the

presence. The closed shop provision in their existing CBA was borne out of

the need to maintain mutual trust and good relations between the

management.

Hence, passions running high in some employees that may lead to a

highly volatile employer-labor union atmosphere may be dispelled by the

presence of some employees who are less inimical to employers and neutral

in the position. This could facilitate for a more effective dialogue with the

employers. In this regard, closed shop provisions are instrumental in

preserving industrial unity.

36

V. Conclusion

The issue on closed shop provisions cannot be reduced to one simple

question- must closed shop provisions be allowed by law? In the Philippines,

the law allows these type of provisions, and as they are allowed according

to the letter of the law, there is no use in debating about a question already

answered.

As such, perhaps the better question must be phrased in three-tiered

fashion: One, under what circumstances are closed shop provisions valid?

Two, what are the facts and circumstances of the case at bar with regard to

closed shop agreements? (or put another way, do employers and labor

unions commonly use these provision to further their own interests to the

detriment of workers). After these are answered, then ask, do closed shop

provisions in the particular CBA impair constitutional rights so as to

warrant their being struck down as invalid?

The foregoing discussion shows that the claimed benefits to workers

may indeed be achieved by these closed shop agreements. But this does not

apply to all situations. Based on current practices by the employers and 37

employees in the Phlippines, these provisions may be subject to abuse by

many employers and labor unions to the detriment of the workers.

The courts could have tempered the abuse of these provisions. More

often than not though, they have upheld the validity of these provisions at

the lowest quantum of evidence- substantial evidence. And even if the

Supreme Court has declared that the burden of legality of dismissal rests on

the employer, there is yet to be a Supreme Court decision declaring that

closed shop provisions must be frowned upon and interpreted strictly

against the union or the management, and liberally towards the workers.

The end result of all these is the Court’s usual attitude to rule in favor

of the party invoking closed shop provisions, provided it has been convinced

that the due process requirements have been met. It does so without

looking into the purposes of including closed shop provisions in the

agreement. So even if these are specifically inserted for the purpose of

subverting and curtailing Labor laws in force, they are deemed valid and

upheld by the Courts.

The welfare of workers is of paramount interest. These are

purposefully guarded by the Constitution and Labor laws. However, due to

closed shop provisions, the workers’ full and unhampered exercise of their

rights is put in a precarious situation.

There are exceptions to this rule, wherein closed shop agreements

foster industrial unity. Employing the strict scrutiny test in White Light vs. 38

Manila68, the rights of persons to life, liberty and property and the press

may only be hampered for a compelling state interest and that there are

reasonable means availableto achieve the goal of protecting the

aforesaid compelling state interest, save for the preclusion of certain

person to exercise their constitutional rights. For compelling state interest

such as industrial unity that could only be achieved through closed shop

provisions,the limitation of workers’ rights such as their right to freedom of

association, et al. may be had.A caveat to this though, courts have the

responsibility to ensure that in illegal dismissal cases on the ground of

closed shop agreements, they also review the validity of these provisions. If

it be shown that these provisions have been specifically added to merely

evade their obligations under the law and not for compelling state interest

such as to foster industrial unity as the reasoning proffered in ICTSI’s case,

courts must strike them down motu propriu, even if such have not been

alleged in the Petition.

All be told, closed shop provisions exist and they do not look to

be invalidated in the near future. Hence, more rules must be clarified

and solidified to ensure that these provisions hold true to form and that

their purpose which is to benefit the workers is realized and not reduced to

a mere standard argument that the employers and labor unions may raise

every now and then. The facts and circumstances in every case must be

68White Light Corp. vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, Jan. 20, 2009.39

studied and a closed shop provision be deemed to be valid, only a upon a

showing that the presence of this type of provision is justified by compelling

state interest, based on the nature of the facts and circumstances of the

case, i.e. the employer’s industry perhaps.

The fruits of the Martial law era are the Bill of Rights enshrined in the

Philippine constitution. These rights are of utmost importance as they

became key to Philippine freedom and the democracy that Filipinos are

enjoying today. The Labor Code affirms the importance of upholding these

rights. Therefore, provisions, such as closed shop provisions, that may

defeat the full exercise of these fundamental rights must be subject to

criticism and heavily scrutiny. This, the group hopes has been sufficiently

addressed in the whole of this paper.

VI. Bibliography

40

Laws

1987 Philippine Constitution

Labor Code of the Philippines

Rep. Act No. 875, The Magna Carta of Labor

Domestic Laws of Foreign Countries

United Kingdom’s TradeUnionandLabourRelations (Consolidation) Act 1992

Australia’s Workplace Relations Act 1996.

Philippine Jurisprudence

Alabang Country Club, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. 170287, Feb. 14, 2008.

Aquino v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 87653, 206 SCRA 118, Feb. 11, 1992.

Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. v. National Employees Workers Security Union, G.R. No. L-2003, 53 O.G. 615, Dec. 21, 1956,

Bernardo v. NLRC, 369 Phil. 443, Jul. 12, 1999.

Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Co., Inc v. Philipine Asoociation of Free Labor Unions, G.R. No. L-18782, 8 SCRA 700, Aug. 29, 1963.

Carino v. NLRC, G.R. No. 91086, 185 SCRA 177, May 8, 1990.

Confederated Sons of Labor v. Anakan Lumber Co. G.R. No. L-12503, Apr. 20, 1960.

Del Monte Philippines v. Saldivar, G.R. No. 158620, 504 SCRA 192, Oct. 11, 2006.

Ferrer v. NLRC, G.R. No. 100898, Jul. 5, 1993.

41

General Milling Corporation v. Casi, G.R. No. 149552, Mar. 10, 2010.

Guijarno v. CIR, G.R. Nos. L-28791-93, Aug. 27, 1973.

Inguillo v. First Philippine Scales, G.R. No. 165407, 588 SCRA 471, Jun. 5, 2009.

JMM Promotion and Management Inc, and Kary International Inc.er v. CA .R. No. 120095, Aug. 5, 1996

Lagarde v. NLRC, CA-G.R. SP No. 100815.

Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union c. Liberty Cotton Mills, G.R. No.L-33187.

Lirag Textile Mills, Inc v. Epifanio D.Blanco & CIR, G.R. No. L-27029, November 12, 1981

Magsalin v. National Organization of Working Men, 451 Phil. 254, May 9, 2003.

Malayang Manggagawa ng Ang Tibay vs. Ang Tibay, G.R. No. L-8259, Dec. 23, 1957.

Malayang Samahan ng Mga Mangagawa sa M.Greenfiled (MSMG-UWP) v. Ramos, G.R. No. 113907, Feb. 28, 2000.

Manalang v. Artex Dev. Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-20432, 21 SCRA 562, Oct. 30, 1967.

National Labor Union v. Aguinaldo’s Echague, Inc, G.R. No. L-7358, May 31, 1955.

National Labor Union vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 68 Phil 732 (1939).

Pakistan Airlines Corporation v. Ople, G.R. No. 61594 Sep. 28, 1990

Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC, 198 SCRA 748, (1991).

Philippine Federation of Credit Cooperatives, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121071, Dec. 11, 1998.

42

Philippine Movie Workers' Assn. v. Premier Productions, Inc., 92 Phil 8423 (1953)

Reyes v. Trajano, G.R. No. 84433, Jun 2, 1992.

Sagales v. Rustans, G.R. No. 166554, Nov. 27, 2008.

Tolentino v. Angeles, 52 O.G. 4262, G.R. No. L-8150, May 30, 1956.

Tropical Hut Employees’ Union-CGW v. Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc, G.R. No. L-43495-99, 66 SCRA 512, Jan. 20, 1990.

Victoria Milling Co. Inc v. Victoria-Manapla Workers Organization, G.R. No. L-18467, Sept. 30, 1967.

White Light Corp. vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, Jan. 20, 2009.

International Cases

"Case(s) No(s). 188, ReportNo. 34 (Denmark): ComplaintsagainsttheGovernmentofDenmarkpresentedbySwissPrintingWorkers' UnionandtheSwissFederationofNationalChristianTradeUnions." Document No. 031960034188, Cases of the Committee on Freedom of Association, International Labor Organization. Mar. 4, 1959.

Slaughter House Cases, 83 US 36.

International Laws

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention of 1948

Papers

Jay Batongbacal, Promoting Decent Work in the Maritime Industry in the Philippines: Focus on the Overseas Filipino Seafarer: A Study for the International Labor Organization, Nov. 15, 2002.

43

McCarthy, W.E.J. The Closed Shop in Britain, Basil Blackwell, Oxford(1964).

Morris, R. The Employer's Free Selection of Labour and the Waterfront Closed Shop, Journal of Industrial Relations, pp. 49-62, (1981).

Metcalf, D. Trade Unions and Economic Performance: The British Evidence, LSE Quarterly, 3(1989).

Websites

Vicente Foz. Constitutional Dimensions of the Right to Self-Organization,available at http://www.filipiniana.net/publication/constitutional-dimensions-of-the-right-to-self-organization/12791881625614/1/0 (last visited Mar. 22 2011).

U.K. government’s website available athttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/contents#pt3-pb1-l1g137(last visited Mar. 22, 2011).

Gianni Zappala, The Closed Shop: Help or Hindrance in the Union Movement?,available athttp://www.wrc.org.au/documents/WP09.pdf (last visited Apr. 3, 2011).

44

http://www.wrc.org.au/documents/WP09.pdf

ANNEX “A”

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

Date: January 14, 2011H: HR Superintendent, Atty. Michael AlcazarP: Union President, Guillermo MalipotK: Interviewer, Kris Rimban================================================================================

P: ‘Yong amin talaga, mahirap din mag-ano kasi pagka-inano namin ‘to, tawag nito, minadali, mahirap.

H: Oo, baka ma-technical tayo.

P: Kasi ang samin kasi CBA kasi naming dito, closed shop eh.

45

K: Background po muna, ano po name ng union niyo?

P: NMPI. NMPI – NAFLU

K: Kayo lang po yong union dito?

P: Iisa, iisa, oo. May mga, may natira rito kasi nung nag-eleksyon kasi ng local. Syempre, nung panahon na yon, tumiwalag sila sa hanay ng NMPI-NAFLU. Nagkaroon ng eleksiyon sa CA, certificates of election. May dinadala silang…

H: Sarili.

P: Sarili. Hanggang ngayon, hindi sila nagbalik sa akin. Kumbaga sa ano, anim na lang sila, ang tawag nyan, minority union (__?) sila. Pero hindi sila kinikilala ng management. Bilang rank and file sila, dahil nandito naman sila sa nasasakupan ng ano ng rank and file, at lahat ng CBA lahat ng mga benepisyo mayron sila, ang union dues na inaano sa rank and file sa kanila, eh GCP. Parehas din. Four percent lang sa basic. Kaya sila na anim, ang tawag sa kanila, minority.

H: Sobrang minority… Ilan bang miyembro mo ngayon Pres? Mga siyam na daan na yatang mahigit ano?

P: Nine hundred plus na…

H: Nine hundred plus, oo…

P: Aanim na lang sila. Yong iba parang balik din eh. Nagbalik din di ba? Hindi naman sila totally isang grupo nila nung panahon na nung eleksyon, talagang pumunta rito. Yong mga benepisyo sa inyo, magkakaroon sila. Sila talagang hindi tinuloy. Kaya malas nga lang, magkakaroon tayo ng local election na naman sa…

H: Next year…

P: 2012. Sa local election, pagpili mo ng mga opisyales, hindi sila makaka…

46

jay, 04/04/11,

Time 00:57

jay, 04/04/11,

Time 01:15

H: Makakaboto…

P: At hindi makakapagkandidato.

H: Oo.

P: Dahil hindi kami miyembro. Yon ang mahal sa kanila. Siguro ngayon, mga hagingan ako na parang ngpaplano. Nagpaplano sila. Pero sabi ko, pagkakukuha sila ng taong susuportahan nila. Sila hindi na pwede. Dahil hindi ka nagpasakop sa akin eh. Pag nagpasakop ka, malaya. Pwede kang lumaban uli sa eleksiyon, sa local eleksiyon . Isa lang talaga. Ako lang ang nasa union. Sa South apat yata Attorney.

H: Marami dun… Madami dun.

P: Mayrong union sa checker, meron sa ---

H: Bargaining unit.

P: Basta apat. Apat yon.

H: Pag sinabi ni Press na south, its pertaining to ATI, Asian Terminal

P: Yong sa atin, isa lang. Sa lawak nito, isa lang ang…

H: Kasi kung dadaanan mo yan dyan, most likely Asian Terminal Inc.

K: Pero sa kabila po maraming union dito, kayo lang po talaga?

P: Ako lang.

K: Ah.

H: Sila lang.

P: NMPI-NAFLU. National Federation of Labor Union. Yon ang mother federation namin.

H: Kasi sa ano, first Vice President. Brother Louie, this is Kris from UP Law.

47

jay, 04/04/11,

Time 02:46

L: Oo, nakikiinternet ako.

H: Kasi pinag-aaralan nya yong ano natin….

P: Hihingi sa atin ng ano…. H: Si Kris, oo si Kris.

P: Ano pa ba yong mga ano…

K: Sir una po, since when po yong NMPI-NAFLU nasa union dito sa ICTSI? Bale gaano katagal na po kayo?

P: Nag-umpisa itong NMPI, panahon pa ni Joe TanH: Mga…

P: 2000.

H: Year 2000, year 2000.

P: 2000, sa amin… opisyales. Ako nag-BOD ako nun.

H: Oo, BOD ka na pala nun.

K: So, hindi po kayo yong first union nun sa ICTSI.

P: Mas marami.

H: Meron.

P: May nauna sa amin. Marami.

H: Pero hindi nagtagal. Hehehe

P: Si Cabaro, tumagal din.

H: Tumagal din ba si Cabaro?

P: Tumagal, naka-dalawang taon.

48

H: Ah ok.

P: …APWU

H: … Associated Port Worker’s Union…

P: Yon ang word dito nung dumating ako ng 1995. Sila ang may hawak dito nung mga panahon na yon.

K: So sir, bale all employees of ICTSI from the checkers to the part workers, mga ganun sir. Sir, kumbaga my question is anu-ano po yong… anu-ano pong klaseng employees… opo, yong…

P: Sumasakop ng union?

K: Opo sir.

P: Magmula sa checker, mga rank and file yan eh, operator… --ng tawag na natin GPW na eh.

H: General Purpose Worker… yan yong pinaka estipador

P: Estabador yan… talagang ano eh… Sa amin ngayon, nagbago yan. General Purpose Workers, GPW.Yon sa Maintenance hindi naman, sa Engineering hindi naman lahat din, pero may mga rank and file doon. Ang hindi naman sakop ng union doon, yong mga technician. Kasi ano yon, managerial yon.

H: Pwede ba kita mabigyan later Kris ng information kung sinong, kung sino yong included dun sa bargaining unit ng…

P: Dyan sa CBA natin di ba?

H: Nasa CBA naman yan…. Mamaya na lang… Para makita mo kung sino dun…

P: Para kung sinu-sino talaga. At para malinaw.

49

K: Bale sir, nasabi po nina Kathy last week na since the start po, harmonious naman po yong relationship between the management and the union?

P: Yong sa amin?

K: Yes sir.

P: Sobra. Saka maganda yong marami talagang partnership kami.

K: Saan nyo po ma-attribute yong ganyang relationship? Kumbaga, paano nyo po na-attain yong ganyang harmonious relationship?

P: Kasi nung panahon na yon, umpisahan ko sa ano, kasi nung hindi pa ako opisyales, nagtrabaho na ako dito eh. Ang feeling ko nun, ang pakiwari ko sa sarili ko, hindi nagkakaroon ng talagang pag-uunawaan yong union at saka yong management. Yon palang mga panahon na yon, parang ano kasi, parang magkalaban eh. Parang magkalaban sa ano ko. At nung panahon na yon, kamin na mga rank and file, kaming mga operator. Operator ako sa QC eh. Pag lumalapit kami sa side ng management, hindi katulad sa atin ngayon na pwedeng mag-usap. Dun, parang magtanong ka lang, aalis sila agad. Parang ano, parang hindi masyado ine-entertain eh. Pakiramdam ko nun, nun mga panahon , mga 1995 papuntang…

H: Parang may wall.

P: Pag mag-ano ka sa kanila.. Boss…

H: …hihingi ganun…

P: …Magsabi ng kaunti… Pakiramdam ko ng mga panahon na yon, talagang hindi… Nung magstart na ako dito sa unang ano ko, yong ang naging director ako ng panahon ng 2010, nag-umpisa na yong seminar-seminar. Nagkaroon ng conduct yong management, si Attorney…

H: Si Dean…

P: Si Dean Gatchalian, propesor. Baguio pa tayo nun… Dun ko nalinawan, na hindi pala dapat magkaaway ang labor organization at saka yong

50

management… Dapat pala talaga mag-team work.Kailangan mag-unawaan.Maliit man o malaki ang problema kailangang resolbahin kaagad.

H: Correct.

P: Dun ko nakita na hindi kayo ma-aayos kung ang union kung magmatigas sa management. Kaya ang management din…

H: …Give and take…

P: …Kailangan patas. Sa management naman, pagdating ng negotia… pagdating ng CBA, magkakaroon mag-aano sila ng proposal, dapat transparent din kayo. Ano ba yong gagawin nyo? Ipakita nyo sa kanila yong pinansiyal nyo. Para kung hihingi sila ng dapat i-increase ang tao, alam nila kung hanggang saan sila. Dun ko nauunawaan. Kasi noon, talagang pag nagkakaroon, hindi pa ako noon ano, namumuno. Pag nagkakaroon ng negotiation, tantyahan lang eh… Pag di ka ibigay ng proposal, suntok sa buwan. Hindi sinasagot. Kasi mataas eh... Dapat pala talaga, magka-usap ng maganda. Kaya nung naging opisyales na ako, naka-ano ako ng ideya. Parang dapat ganun at magmula noon, nung na-impeach yong president noon, ako ang pumalit, natuloy yong mga ano natin... Napakadali ng kung ano man yong problema namin. CBA naming sandal lang eh. Nung panahon ng 2008 ba non, nung CBA… Panahon ng crisis. Buong kompanya, kami lang ang binigyan ng kompanya na makipagbargain sa kanila. Lahat tinabla. Strike kayo kung gusto nyo, crisis ngayon pero kami nabigyan kahit konti. Dahil sa magandang samahan, magkakaroon agad ng pag-uunawaan. Dahil transparent eh. Transparent nung dinala nga ako noon ng by-room… Pinasalita ako eh. Papaano halimbawa nyan Mr. President, sabi sa akin. Nagbigay na ang management kahit konting naibigay, nagbago na naman ng ano, anong masasabi mo na naipangako mo na sa tao? Mabigat yon para sa akin. Sa stage ako pinatayo eh. Halimbawa, nakipag-CBA ka na, nung crisis, nagbigay ng maliit. Tumatakbo pa yong ano, pagdating ng final na tinatakda na permahan nyo, nagbago na naman ang management. Mr. President, hindi ko na maibigay to eh. Talagang wala. Nailang ngayon ako sa tao. Ipaliwanag mo kung magkano masagot yong ano. Sabi ko, talagang nagkaroon ng pag-uusap na pirmahan na ang kulang, at ang management naman kako merong pagbabago sila, kami kako partnership naman, isasama ko sila sa bawat departamento at magpaliwanag. Hindi galing dun sa akin. Para ang mga tao, maniniwala na hindi lang sa sa akin yon na ayaw ng

51

management, malamang nagbago na naman. Hindi napakahirap, magsasama kami.Magsasalita ako, magsasalita din sila.Para maunawaan ng tao. Palakpakan dito… Akala nila lalaban kami syempre pumayag na ito ilibre kahit maliit tapos nagbago na naman.

H: Oo…

P: Parang ganun yong gusto ng umiinterbyo sa akin eh…

H: Hinuhuli ka dun sa ganun…

P: Mataas ang ranggo sa labor, mga propesyonal din eh. Binalikan ko sila. Sabi ko, talagang napakahirap na buoin ng tao yan kasi sinabi ko na eh. Mayroon tayo kahit konti pero nagbago ang management…

H: Ayaw na…

P: Nasasagot ko rin… Sige ituloy mo yong ano…

K: Kumusta naman po yong reception ng workers, ano po yong reaction ng workers kung sinong… kunyari, may napromise po kayo di ba? Tapos ganyan po nagbago yong management, syempre kagaya po ng nasabi nyo na sinasama nyo ang management mag-explain, ano po reaction ng mga workers pag ganun?

P: Hindi, ang mga workers naman sa pagpaliwanag…

H: Naintindihan…

P: kasi isa lang naman yong ano nyan eh. Unang-una, pag sinama ko ang management… talagang makikinig lang. Andun yong sakit sa manggagawa kasi nandito ako sa kanila eh. Nung magpaliwanag ang management kasama ako, nagsafe naman ako ng panibagong ano na ako ang haharap. Hindi na kasama ang management. Ngayon, nagsalita ako.Bumalik ako dahil nung nagpameeting kami ng management, parang masama ang loob nyo. Dahil syempre, parang nabuli ayo, magbibigay ng konti tapos nawala. Ngayon naman, ang tanong ko sa inyo, lalaban ba tayo kung hindi sila magbigay?

52

K: Kamusta yung reception sa workers? Ano ang reaction ng workers pag may napromise tapos nagbago yung management? Ang sabi ninyo sinasama niyo yung management mag explain. Ano po yung reaction ng workers pag ganun? P: Ang workers naman, sa pagpaliwanag, unang-una, pag sinama ko yung management, hindi kikibo. Talagang makikinig lang. Syempre andun yung sakit ng ano sa mga manggagawa dahil may ipinangako sa kanila eh. Nag set naman ako ng panibagong ano na ako ang haharap. Hindi na kasama ang management. Ngayon nagsalita ako.Bumalik ako dahil nung kameeting kami ng management, parang masama ang loob niyo, and siyempre, parang nabili tayo eh.Magbibigay ng konti tapos nawala. Ngayon naman ang tanong ko sa inyo, lalaban ba tayo kung hindi sila magbigay? Dahil ito tauban ng kaldero ito eh. Tatanungin ko kayo kung lalaban ba tayo sa strike? Para malinaw.Kailangan magpirmahan tayo.Ayoko nang bunganga lang. Verbal lang. Lalaban kami. Nasubukan ko na kako noong panahon. May strike kami rito. Isang araw lang marami. Kinabukasan wala nang tao. Nung bumalik ako sa kanila, sabi ko sa kanila, mga kasama naramdaman ko yung mga damdamin niyo nung nagmeeting kami ng management. Talagang masama ang loob niyo. Bumalik ako ngayon para sa inyo. Sa tingin ninyo, hindi pa natin tanggapin yung pakiusap nila na nangako sila na magbibigay ng kahit konti at may pagbabago? Ngayon kung talagang gusto ninyong pare pareho tayong magsakripisyo, tauban ng kaldero ito. Dapat bang lumaban tayo dahil hindi nila ibinigay yung kapiranggot na hiningi natin?Magsalita kayo. Nagsalita sila. Pres, hindi naman pwedeng mag ganun kasi may pamilya tayo. Inisa-isa ko. Ibig sabihin, talagang walang ano sa kanila. Kasi ako open ako. Hindi kako pwedeng ako lang ang titirik diyan sa kalsada. Sama-sama tayo, dahil inayawan niyo. Hindi na sila pumirma. Pres wag na wag na tayong mag ganon. Ok lang yan. Buti nga kahit papaano... Naresolba kaagad. Pero tama yung sinabi mo. Talagang may reaksyon. Nung panahon na nagumpisa kami, talagang masama. Halimbawa malungkot eh. Kasi inaasahan nila may konti. Ganun lang kasimple ang mga nangyayari na ano. Kahit na sabihin natin na natuloy pa rin yung konti naming, yung konting CBA namin, meron kami. Ang sample mo kasi pano kung wala? Parang ganun.Natuloy yun kahit konti. Pasalamat pa rin sila at nagkaroon pa ng signing bonus kahit may economi crisis. H: That was 2009. Yung sobrang down ng volume.

53

P: Down tayo noon. Lahat.Pangkalahatan. H: Sobrang hirap ng panahon noon. P: Hindi lang dito. Talagang buong mundo yun. Talagang napakabigat, pero dahil sa pagsasama namin, sa relasyon namin ng management, talagang naintinidhan nila. Kahit konti sinakripisyo nila. At sabi ko rin sa mga tao, sabi ng GM magtulungan tayo kung ano ang magagawa natin para makareduce tayo, magreduce ng overtime. Wala tayong babawasin na tao, pero ang overtime, medyo i-ano natin. Otso ang iba. Ang iba kung kailangan abutin ng barko may tatlong oras. Pag wala, talagang… Naayos naman yun, kasi lahat napaguusapan. H: Ang arrangement kasi Kris dati, halos everyday is a guaranteed overtime for the employee. Dahil dalawang oras eh.So binabayaran naming yung excess rate. So during the crisis, dalawang option ang nabigay sa management. It’s either magbabawas ako ng tao, or magbabawas ako ng overtime to reduce the cost. Sabi ng general manager, no. Kung nagtatanggalan ng tao sa labas, hindi ako magtatanggal ng tao. Let’s just reduce on other costs. So kailangan sa isang departamento na dalawa ang dyaryo, isa na lang. Bawasan natin. P: Talagang sakripisyo kaming lahat. Hindi lang sa kanila. Pati kami ditto dumanas ng ano. H: 2009. Oo.Mabigat yun. Ultimo managers tinanggalan ng direct line. Mga departamento isa na lang ang dyaryo. Kahit dun sa mga pinakasimple. Let’s say ang supply mo ng tissue sa isang buwan ay sampung rolyo, ginawa nalang anim. Pero yun ang commitment naming, never kaming nagbawas ng tao. P: Walang nabawas sa amin noong panahon nay un kaya pasalamat din kami. Kasi kung magbawas sila, wala din kaming magagawa talaga eh. Pag sinabi ng management na mag ano tayo ng tao, dahil sobra, wala nang gagawin eh, di ba? Pero nangako ang GM na gagawa tayo ng paraan. Maguusap tayo, pres, gawin natin ang ano para yung mga tao. H: Yan yung mga panahon na talagang naririnig mo yung mga IT, yung mga chips na nagsha-shutdown yung operation nila, as in talagang ubos. K: Sir, from the management naman po. From your perspective, saan niyo po maaattribute yung relationship niyo na maganda?

54

H: Well, ang sobrang malaking pasalamat naming talaga ay kay Dean Gatchalian. Alam mo, ganyan ganyan din siguro yung sentimyento niya para sa amin. Si Dean Gatchalian is the former dean of UP SOLAIR, School of Labor… basta SOLAIR. K: Industrial relations? H: Industrial relations. Oo. Siya yung nag-introduce sa amin ng labor management cooperation. So, from that time, yun nga, lumalabas kami. Ito, sa Baguio yan Pres, di ba? (Pointing to a photo) P: Oo. Baguio yan.Ayun si Dean.Yung naka-blue.H: Baka familiar face sa’yo yan ‘coz he’s from UP also. Dun talaga nagstart lahat yun. So nandun. From during the time nina Pres, sabi nga niya empleyado pa lang siya nun, hindi pa siya opisyales. Parang ang tingin pa niya sa management, nitong mga employees, na napakalaki ng barrier sa gitna. From the time na mag ka election kami, eto yung management, eto yung employee. Hindi na namin tinitingnan as diyan kayo, dito kami. It’s more of labor management partnership. Diyan naming inaattribute yung success naming ngayon. And kahit umattend sa conventions ng PMAP or ng Philippine Association of Labor Management Council, mga ganyan, sobrang natutuwa yung ibang kumpanya sa amin, kasi dun ka lang nakakita ng presidente ng unyon, saka manager ng HR, sobrang close. To the point na ikaw na ang magsalita. Nag gaganyanan yung dalawa. (laughs) P: Kasi pag ganyan Kris, minsan presidente ng unyon, yung iba naman, management lang. Nagulat sa amin na dalawa ang magsasalita. Palitan. At hina-highlight namin yung nangyari dito sa loob. Kung gaano ka-crisis noong unang panahon dito.Mabigat nung araw dito, Kris.Mabigat ang history ng ICTSI. Kaya nagulat sila na paano naging— Nagulat yung kumpanyang malalaki. Kasi alam nila itong ICTSI pier ito eh.Sa kanila kasi mga factory. Nagulat sila sa amin. Paano naayos ito? Hinighlight naming yung mga previous na ano-- kung paano naglabanan, kung pano dahan-dahan. Talagang naano sila eh.Kaya lagi kaming iniimbita eh.Di ba Atty?Nakarating ako ng Cebu, ng Cagayan de Oro. Kung baga sa ano, lahat ng ano, partnership lagi. Yung HR manager, lagi kaming iniimbita sa mga ganyan. Tuwang-tuwa sila eh.Tuwang-tuwa. H: Ang isang proof siguro din niya Pres, nung 2009, we were awarded by Employers’ Confederation of the Philippines, di ba? Yung Outstanding Achievement on Industrial Peace.Sa kanilang kapatiran sa industriya, nirecognize nila yung populations naming dito. Yan yung trophy. Pero yan,

55

finalist pa lang yan. Yung award, nandun sa office ng GM. Yan, yung LMC Best Practice Award. P: Yung magandang relasyon namin, talagang may ebidensya eh. K: Since 2000, ganyan na ang relationship niyo? P: Hindi. Nung 2000, hindi pa ako presidente. Board member pa lang ako. Nung napalitan ko yung presidente, 2003 ako nagumpisa, hanggang ngayon. Kasi naimpeach yun eh. K: So sir, before po nun, magulo na yung situation? P: Umpisa na noon. Umpisa na nagtatransform na, pero hindi pa talaga ganoong ka-close. Hindi pa. H: Pero kung tatanungin mo kami. Let’s say from 1988, the year we started, up to let’s say mid ninetees, or late ninetees, ay nako— P: Yan yung talagang mabigat. H: May nakikita ka nalang na biglang may tumutumba diyan. P: Makita mo na lang ‘pag magbbreaktime, may pupunta sa canteen, may binabaril. Ganun ditto noong unang panahon, basta may atraso ka. K: Ano po yun, sir? Management labor, or yung labor din? H: Ah, well, this dwells within labor. Pero yung sa mangement labor side din, hindi ganun kabilis magconclude ng CBA during that time. Kaya nga gaya ng kinukwento sa’yo ni Pres kanina na tingin nila, bakit ba parang ang hirap hirap makipag-usap sa management. Parang ganun.Sobrang antagonist eh, antagonistic ang dating. Pero ngayon, hindi eh. Isang ano lang eh, lapit agad. P: Tawagan kami agad. Ang bilis, ang bilis ng ano namin— H: Imagine mo ha, they have direct access dun sa aming Vice President and General Manager. They even have direct access to the EVP nga eh. Ganun, ganun. P: Oo. Umaakyat ako dun. Kasi nag momonitor din siya (through) sa akin. H: Na noong unang panahon, ni hindi sila makalapit even sa mga manager level lang.

56

P: Ngayon, kung baga sa ano, open eh. Tulungan. Kung may mga tao kaming dapat na anuhin, pupunta sa akin. Hindi mahirap. Pag meron kaming mga miyembro din na may ipaparating na comment sa akin, mabilis agad naming maano. H: And even the manager. Siya mismo ang tatawag dito. O, Pres, punatahan mo ako ditto ha? I need to discuss something. Kailangan ko ang tulong mo. To the point na ganun. Kung baga yung management hindi siya nagdedecide on its own na lang eh. I have to consult the union first. P: Kaya pagbaba sa tao, hindi nabubulaga. Kasi kung baga sa ano, napagusapan na sa taas, tapos bababa sa tao, alam na nila kaagad. Hindi katulad noong unang panahon, pag nag memo ang ano, gulat na lang ang mga tao. Pag nagmemo ang management ang mga tao sunod na lang. Walang ano eh. Pero ngayon pag nag ano, may kompromiso muna. Usap muna kami. Pag nakikita ko dun sa ano nila, medyo ano ito, baguhin natin ang ano nito, kasi medyo iba itong ano ito. Kasi inaano din naming yung mga tao para gumaan eh. Minsan mabibigla yan eh. Hindi naman como sila ang mga ano lahat, pag nakikita naming ano, siyempre ramdam namin ang mga ano ng rank-and-file eh. Baka pwede nating baguhin ang ano nito.Gawing light. H: Ang sarap pakinggan Kris, noh? Parang sobrang imposibleng mangyari, kasi pantalan, piyer. P: Kasi alam nila itong buhay sa pantalan eh. Puro barako. Ang babae lang dito opisina. H: Alam mo Kris, I would suggest also noh, since taga UP din kayo, why don’t you interview Gatchalian? Sabihin mo nalang nakausap ko na po si Pres Jun tsaka si Atty. Mike dun sa ICTSI. Sasabihin nun, naku, oo, mga estudyante ko yun. Mentor na ang tingin namin sa kanya. Suggestion ko lang yun, kung kasama yun sa scope ng study niyo. If you are allowed to go outside nitong case niyo K: Pwede naman po, sir. Kasi ang balak namin, since it’s an ideal partnership, then it can also be a model for labor relations eh. H: Kaya nga Pres, nung hinihingan nga nila ako. Sabi nila, Atty. Mike, kailangan siguro namin ng Supreme Court decision, yun sana manlang 5 years yung pinakamatandang decision so that mga 2005-2010. Sabi ko, naku pasensya na kayo kasi walang umaabot sa’min ngayon na cases sa Supreme Court eh. Kasi talagang plantsado lahat sa baba pa lang.

57

P: Mabilis dito sa amin. Hindi kami nagtatagal, kasi ditto pa lang pinag-aaralan din. Pinag-aaralan kung dapat ba itong ituloy natin? Kasi mahirap yung kukunsulta ka sa mga ano. H: Tsaka dib a, the stereotype sa mga unyonista, kapag may tinanggal sa trabaho na mga myembro nila, ilalaban nila yan kahit mali. Sa mga ito, hindi. Pag alam nilang mali, sorry. P: Kasi ang mga myembro hindi nila alam ang kahihinatnan. Hingi na lang tayo ng konting consideration, pabor. Baka kahit matanggal ka, mabigyan ka ng kahit konti.Financial assistance. Kasi kung ilalaban mo yan mas lalo. Gagastos ka pa.Madali maano. Kasi pag tingin naming talagang walang lusot, hindi. H: Saka bago pa madismiss yun, nag undergo na yan ng counseling eh. P: Dadaan dito talaga. Sa grievance machinery talagang hinimay-himay yan, hanggang dumating dun sa top. Hindi deretsuhan. Meron pa nga kaming dinugtong sa grievance machinery. Yung friendly negotiation. Wala sa ibang kumpanya niyan. K: Sir pwede po bang paki-explain yung grievance system niyo dito? H: O sige. Its part of the CBA na eh. Kasi when we say grievance machinery— may mga certain offenses kasi na, instead of, let’s say kailangan kang masuspend for 5 days, yung suspension nay un parang iaappeal mo yun. May tatlo kaming level dito, the shop level- so ang kaharap mo dun ay yung mga supervisor. Kapag hindi kayo nagkasundo dun, we have to elevate it sa managerial level, plant level ang tawag namin. Ang kaharap ngayon dun is the department head and the HR head. Ngayon kung hindi pa rin magkasundo dun, let’s say ang gusto ng employee talagang maexonerate siya, ang gusto ng mga managers, no, we just reduce, let’s say 3 days na lang ang suspension mo. Ayaw pumayag ni employee, akyat kami, top level. Yan yung general manager level. Dun ka na haharap sa GM. So dun, magkasundo kayo. Pag di pa rin kayo nagkasundo dyan, san ang punta natin? Voluntary arbitrators. We now apply the provision in legal law. Voluntary arbitrators. Basically ganun yung step. Ngayon ano yung sinasabi ni Pres kanina na nagdagdag pa kami ng isa pang stage? Kapag nasuspinde ka, let’s say for AWOL, first offense mo lang, let’s say 5 days suspension, dinagdagan naming ng isang stage pa bago ka makaabot dun sa shop level, pag usapan natin within. Sabihin natin, ok, since this is your first offense, you’re pardoned. This will not form part of your 201 file. We are going to exonerate you, but this is the last. Ang tawag namin dun, this is the friendly stage. Kung baga, nadadala pa lang sa

58

pakiusapan, para hindi na tayo umabot pa dun sa initial stage ng grievance machinery. Pero for one time lang yun. Pag next time nag AWOL ka pa rin, dadaan na tayo ng grievance niyan, kasi napagbigyan ka na nung una eh, dun sa friendly stage eh, di ba? Yung una, it will not form part of your 201 file. Ibig sabihin it will not tarnish your record. But the next time you do it again, ayan, dadaan na tayo. Hindi outright suspension. Dadaan ka pa rin dun sa proseso. Yun yung kagandahan. K: Sa estimate niyo sir, sa lahat ng cases na dumadaan ditto, ilan yung umaabot ng voluntary arbitration? H: Ngayon? Isa lang. Nareresolve namin yan sa baba. Meron lang kasi kaming isang employee na medyo matigas siya eh. Siya na talaga yung mali, kasi all pieces of evidence point to him eh. Kaya lang ayaw niya eh. Gusto daw niya mag VA. Naglabas na ng desisyon ang VA, talo na siya sa voluntary arbitration. Yun yung sinasabi ko sa iyo, Kris, na dito sila, alam nilang mali yung employee, hindi nila kinukunsinte. Although they have to represent them. Pero pag alam naman nilang nasa tama sila, kami ang nakikinig. Sige, let’s settle. Ganito ang gawin natin. K: Sir, ano naman ang nasasabi nila about your relationship? Kasi yung ibang cases naming, minsan yung national union pa ang nag-eencourage magfile ng suit. Hindi naman po sila nakakaintrude dun sa relationship? P: Pag ganun kasing may kasong mabigat, tumakbo diyan sa labor na, yung council of law ang dumedepensa. Sila talaga.Hindi pwedeng kaming kumuha ng iba, dahil sila ang mother namin eh. Umabot lang sa punto na talagang madesisyunan, sa kanila galling, sila ang gumagawa, sila ang humaharap, lahat. At kami nakaalalay lang. Pagdating kasi sa kaso, nagkakaroon na ng 50-50 yan. Pag shinuffle yung kaso, bago magumpisa na talaga dun sa ano, nagbayad kami ng P7,500 eh. Filing. Ang humawak nun, Kris, yung Federation na. Kaya kung anuman ang magiging desisyon, hindi masasabing magkakaroon sila ng ano sa amin, dahil alam nila eh. Bilang unyon kami, sinasabi namin na sige ilaban mo, kung gusto mo, pero tagilid tayo. Mabigat yung ebidensya kako ng management. Pero kung sa sarili mo, gusto mo pa ring ituloy, andito kami para suportahan ka. H: So kung ang tanong mo, kung may influence ba ang NAFLU sa operations ng NMPI, wala. Sila ang nagpapalakad dito. Pero when it comes to, lets say, may actvities ang NAFLU na kailangan attendan ng local, pumupunta sila. P: Obligado kami.

59

H: When it comes to legal services, nakakaharap din naming sa labor management meetings naming, even the president of NAFLU. Even the legal counsel of NAFLU, nandito sila.So alam nila.Alam nila lahat yun.With the advent of LMC, alam nilang talagang harmonious ang relationship. K: Sa CBA there’s a closed shop agreement. I guess the question is bakit? P: Iba-iba kasi ang ano ng CBA. May parteng hindi closed shop provision, pero ang sa amin talaga closed shop, para yung mga dapat naming pag maintain sa rank and file, talagang maano ng unyon. Talagang susunod tayo sa closed shop, kasi kung hindi, may mga bagay talaga na madali matanggal eh. H: Kris, ganito. It’s more of empowering the union. Bakit?Pag kailangan naming ng manpower. Let’s say the management needs manpower, hindi kami kumukuha deretso sa labas. Tatawag kami kay Pres. Pres, sino yung mga rekomendado mo? Kung sino yung mga rekomendado mo, yun yung mga isscreen naming. Ibig sabihin, again, we involve the union. Kayo yung pumili. Let’s say kailangan naming ng limang tao. Padalhan mo ako Pres ng sampung rekomendado mo. Kasi kailangan namin yung rekomendasyon manggaling sayo, yung tingin mo, fit para maging tao mo sa union, fit din para sa trabaho naman sa amin, sa management. So ‘pag binigyan ako ni Pres ng sampung recommendation, papa-examin namin, iiscreenin namin. Sino yung mga karapat-dapat sa mga ito? Kukuha kami ng lima. Pero nakita mo yung beauty nun?Bakit? Lahat ng rekomendasyon nanggaling kay Pres, nanggaling sa unyon. Hindi kami kumukuha na lang ng basta basta. Kumbaga dumaan sa kanya. Etong mga ito, eto yung mga pwede ko pagkatiwalaan. Again, the union is being involved in a way, sa hiring. Although the final say is with the management pa rin, pero the recommendation is galing sa kanya. Kung baga sinasabi ni Pres, eto tingin ko lahat ‘to okay. Bahala na kayo kung sino ang pipiliin niyo diyan. K: Kung baga it’s a way of preserving the chemistry? H: In a way, yes. Pero of course, ang closed shop agreement, you have to be a member of a union for you to maintain your employment. Bakit namin ginawang ganun?Kasi nga gusto namin, close yung relationship ng management with you. Kung baga hindi kami maglalagay ng tao diyan na in the first place, hindi pinagkakatiwalaan ng unyon. K: Sir, balik tayo dun sa kaso, noh? Si Lagarde, ano yung dahilan kung bakit nila ginawa yung trying to replace the officers? Ano yung nagdrive sa kanila?

60

P: Ang umpisa kasi nito, magkakaroon kami ng CA, nung panahon na yun. Kailangan pag magkakaroon ng CA mayroon kang line up na sa mga opisyales. Kung sino yung dadalhin mong federation, luma-line up kayo. SA madaling sabi, nagbuo sila ng mga tao, hindi pa panahon ng freedom period. Nagkaroon kami ng seminar sa rank and file, itong mga ito, nagpapirma dito sa loob. Ibig sabihin, nag gapang sila, itong grupo ni Lagarde. Dun pa lang, may nagreport na sa akin na opisyales. Pres, may nagpapapirma dito. Saang departamento?Sa General Purpose Worker. Pagdating ko dito, antimano, inaksyunan ko. Nagpameeting ako. Sabi nila, may nagpapirma dito, yung iba Pres, pumirma. Ano’ng pinirmahan? Pres, may line up eh. Edi minanmanan ko na yung moves nila, kasi malayo pa yung CA eh. Nagbigay na ako ng mga ano sa bawat departamento. Sabi sa akin, Pres may nagpapirma dito. Sabi ko, agawin niyo. Kakatakot Pres, ang daming pirma, 400 plus na. Ibig sabihin mangangalahati na. Pres baka kumampi yung mga nakapirma, kawawa naman kami. Ang ginawa ko, nagpaalam ako sa pederasyon. Pangulo, may gumagawa dito ng gulo, hindi naman malaki , pero umpisa na eh. Ano ba ang magagawa rito?Ang sabi sakin, agawin mo yung pinapirmahan para meron tayong ebidensya. Kasi hindi natin makasuhan yun kung verbal. Wala tayong ebidensya. Edi pumasok yung isip ko. Pag wala tayong makuha sa dokumento nilang pinapirmahan, wala tayong kalaban-laban. Edi ok na sa kanila. Siyempre, bilang andito ako sa loob, tumawag ako sa mga managers. Na galing sa NAFLU ang utos sa’kin na papelan ko na ang mga nagpapapirma ditong mga myembro lang. Pres hindi kaya gulo? Hindi naman ako makikipag away. Aanuhin ko lang kako yung ano nila. Ngayon kung hindi ibibigay sa akin, medyo magkakaproblema. Hindi ako papayag kako na sila ang mangibabaw. Dahil opisyales ako eh. Nagtanong ako sa security, tumawag din ako kay Raul, para hindi sila mabibigla kung sakali mang tumaas ang mga tao, alam nila na may ano ako. Tamang-tama, lunch time, nagpapirma na naman doon. May tumawag sa’kin.Pres andito sila, grupo. Syempre pagka ano ko, yung mga opisyales ko dito, saka yung service, punta tayo. Pagdating ko dun, tamang-tama talaga, andun, nagpapaliwanag. Pagdating ko dun sa taas, syempre opisyales eh, inano ko agad yung ano. Pag agaw ko nang ano, gumanon siya, pumalag. Yung naagaw ko pala by-laws. Sabi ko, hindi ito, hindi ito. Akina! May nakapagsigaw sa aking opisyales, Pres sa likod! Dun ko nilagay. Sabi ko, nanggugulo kayo, tahimik na tayo ah. Tapos nagsigaw siya: “Hinarass ako ng presidente niyo. Hinarass ako”. Sabi ko, anong hinarass? Anong karapatan ninyo? Bakit nagpapirma na kayo? Panahon ba kako ng freedom period ngayon?Nanggugulo kayo.Nililito niyo kako mga

61

manggagawa. Nakuha ko yung ebidensya. Dinala ko sa pederasyon. Dun nag-umpisa yun. Pero marami ito sila eh.Hindi lahat nakuha eh.Dinue process din namin eh. Pinadalhan namin ng summon. Sa batas naman, tatlong padala mo, pag hindi ka sagutin, at nareceive dun sa bahay nila— Nung talagang wala, inipon ko yung summon, ibinigay ko sa kanila inumpisahan. Yung iba, naka-line up doon, nagpunta dito nung makatanggap ng summon. Pres hindi ko naman alam na ano, kasi mga kaibigan lang. Lahat ng lumapit sakin, wala, tao lang tayo eh. Pero yung mga nagmatigas, talagang tinuloy namin. Pito sila.Marami sila eh. Lahat ng lumapit sakin, mga lima o walo na kahanay nila sa line up. Edi pinagbigyan ko. Dahil nangako naman sila.Nagretract sila. Sinabi nila na pinilit lang, hindi nila alam. Naka-attach yun sa kaso. Dun nag umpisa yun. Inabot ng taon din hanggang sa nagkaroon ng final na ano rin. Kumilos sila sa panahong hindi pa dapat kumilos. K: Bakit po nila ginawa yun? Hindi po ba sila satisfied dun sa— P: Ganito kasi ang sitwasyon ng mga tao dito eh. May mga isyu na ganun dito kasi may mga tao ditong parang interes lang sila eh. Yung pag gusto nilang tumakbo bilang opisyales ng unyon, para sa sariling interes lang nila, hindi para sa pangkalahatan na tumulong. Sila kasi, kumilos sila, dahil nakita nila ang CBA.Kasi pinapaskil namin yun eh. O, pag kami ang nanalo sa CA, itong bigas dodoblehin namin, tatlong doble pa yan- tres mil. Kasi ang rice allowance naming isang libo eh.Gagawin naming 3,000 yan.Pag tumawad ang management dos mil.Ang tao kasi ditto, pag kaperahan ang paguusapan, maali silang maengganyo, napakadali. Itong mga bayad natin sa isang buwang serbisyo, gagawin nating dalawang buwan sa retirement. May mga propaganda sila eh.Yun namang mga tao, pag ganun kasi, ang ibang mahina ang pang intindi, aba maganda ito, pipirma ako diyan.Parang ganun ang feeling nila eh. Kaya hindi pwedeng walang madala. May mga ginamit akong underground na mga miyembro din, hindi opisyales na nagpaparating sa akin, kasi pag opisyales ang umano dun, hindi magsasalita yan eh. Yung mga ginawa kong underground, na mga myembro lang, nakikihalubilo yan. Yung ang nagrereport sa akin. Kasi pag opisyales ang inasahan mo lahat, hindi ka makakahuli. Pero pag parehas na miyembro, madali makahuli ng tao. Sa organization, pag hindi ka gumawa ng mga ano sa baba, blangko ka eh. Ngayon meron pa ring ganyan, Kris, pero hindi na gaano karami katulad noon. Pailan-ilan.

62

H: Tsaka, mind you, Kris, ha? Etong sina Lagarde, sila mismo ang kasama sa line-up. So, it’s more of politics. Gustong umupo, ang dami nang beses sumubok, pero hindi pumasok, kaya eto, gagawa ng propaganda. “Pag ako ang umupo diyan, itong rice allowance, titriplehin natin”.Ganon.Meron pa ring pangilan-ngilang ganyan, but not the same intensity as before. P: Medyo na-control na. Hindi katulad nung una, nung bagong upo ako, ang bigat. Kung hindi mo ito aanuhin talaga— Kako, para sa tao ako eh, hindi pansarili ko. H: Kaya kung tatanungin mo, ano ba yung nagtulak sa kanila para gawin ‘to? Pang personal. Kasi once na sila na yung nakaupo, ano yang mga yan— P: Kasi alam nila, malaking ano dito sa ano— maraming mga ano ditto sa— katulad ng mga nadugas ng mga unang opisyales. H: Yung pinanggalingan kasi nito is nagkaroon ng issue sa pera. Imbis na gamitin sa tao, kinanila nila. Kaya siguro, gusto pa makakuha ng pera. P: Titingnan mo yung ganung pananalita, alam mo agad na hindi siya para magserbisyo eh. Di ba?Kaya ang mga tao, alam agad. Kaya siguro sa kanila, kahit one time lang maka-ano sila ng five years, malaki rin yun. Di baling matalo, makakabawi rin. Parang ganun ang feeling ng mga loko na yan eh. H: Etong grupo nila (referring to Jun), this is the most transparent eh. Tingnan mo na lahat, all accounted for lahat. Unlike yung nakaraan. Kaya na-impeach yun eh. Yun na yung pumutok na yung baho niya. Kawawa lang. P: Kaya sa atin ngayon, hindi tayo nagtatago sa kanila ng ano. Kasi mahirap.Dito, pag pera ang isyu, mabigat, Kris.Madali ka talagang maano.Pag maisyuhan ka ng ganito, mabilis ang bawi. H: Going back to that case. What happened to that? Tinanggal mo na sa unyon itong mga ito? P: Oo. K: Sir, dumaan sila dun sa grievance? H: Hindi yan dumaan sa grievance. Bakit?Kasi dismissal case. Actually nung una, hindi involved ang management eh. Kaya lang siyempre, tinanggal nila, and by virtue of closed shop, ministerial on our part— P: Tinatanggal naming ito bilang isang myembro ng NPI-NAFLU, ang management naman na nakareceive nito, dahil tinatanggal kayo ng ano

63

dahil sa disloyalty, tinatanggal kayo ng ano bilang miyembro, dahil closed shop tayo, tatanggalin din naming kayo bilang empleyado. H: Pero hindi yung outright, Kris, ha? Pinagpaliwanag pa rin namin sila.Bakit?Ano nangyari? P: Talagang due process, Kris. Talagang dumaan. H: Nang tanggalin namin, ayan, nagfile ng case. Talo sa LA, talo sa CA, talo sa Supreme Court. Ang problema nga lang natin CA decision kasi eh. Umakyat ng Supreme Court ito, Pres, kaya lang hindi pa nakakapagfile ng position paper nila, o ng dokumento nila, sinopla na ng Supreme Court yun eh. Dismissed na agad yun, pati MR nila dismissed.

ANNEX “B”

PHOTO STORY

64

From L-R: Lourdes Alcain, Cathy Panaguiton, Mark Garrido and Naomi Corpuz (photographer) on the way to the office of ICTSI, located at the Manila Port area. Also part of the group is Kiko

Rimban who had class during the field visit.

On the way to ICTSI, we passed by the “pantalan” where tugboats are parked just underneath the bridge.

65

Finally arrived at ICTSI after an hour of travel from the U.P. College of Law.

ICTSI – International Container Terminal Services Inc.

66

Mark and Cathy before entering the ICTSI office.

At the ICTSI main office entrance you will see their local and international partner organizations/ businesses in the shipping

industry.67

The group first went to visit Atty. Bars Lopez who was the former Industrial Relations Superintendent of ICTSI.

From L-R: Mark Garrido, Naomi Corpuz, Lourdes Alcain, Cathy Panaguiton, and Atty. Bars Lopez of ICTSI.

68

The group then went to the ICTSI’s Human Resources Department which handles all Labor-related cases and disputes.

The group brainstorming before the meeting with current Industrial Relations Superintendent, Atty. Michael Alcazar.

69

Cathy interviewing Atty. Bars Lopez and Atty. Michael Alcazar (middle) about the status of ICTSI’s industrial relations.

The group eagerly discussing the ICTSI’s past and current labor disputes with Atty. Michael Alcazar, as well as other contentious

matters. 70

A sample pleading filed against ICTSI at the NLRC level for illegal dismissal.

71

The group had a final photo op with Atty. Bars Lopez with the Manila Bay as the backdrop before heading back home.

72

Documents

Legality of Closed Shop Provisions - Labor 2 Legal Paper