Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 360, June 2011

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 105. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2010 meeting [see 356th Report, paras 143–149], at which time it made the following recommendations:
   • – To initiate exploratory talks without delay between DOLE, the University San Agustin and the USAEU and to keep the Committee informed of their outcome.
   • – To keep the Committee informed of any ruling handed down concerning the legality of the dismissal of the USAEU committee, and to take active steps to intercede with the parties so that the committee members who were dismissed further to their participation in strike action are reinstated immediately in their jobs under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the strike with compensation for lost wages and benefits.
   • – To keep the Committee informed of any ruling handed down in the legal proceedings for nullification of the 2006 election of union officers, and to ensure that if the allegations of employer interference are confirmed, all necessary measures of redress are taken, including sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.
   • – To take all necessary measures in respect of the requested independent inquiry into the allegations of anti-union discrimination in the Eon Philippines Industries Corporation and the Capiz Emmanuel Hospital in Roxas City and, if the acts of anti-union discrimination are confirmed, to take measures to ensure that the workers concerned are reinstated in their posts without loss of pay.
2. 106. The complainant provided follow-up information in communications dated 25 May, 3 August and 27 December 2010, as well as 23 March 2011. The Government submitted follow-up information in a communication dated 15 November 2010.
3. 107. According to both the Government and the complainant, a meeting between the leader of the dismissed faculty members, Government representatives and FFW representatives took place on 12 April 2010 in Iloilo City. The three following items were agreed upon in the discussion: (1) the sending of Government letters to the Court of Appeals to expedite resolution of the pending claims for reinstatement at the University of San Agustin and for nullification of the election of officers in 2006; (2) the need for the dismissed faculty members to submit project proposal(s) to be able to benefit from the Government’s offer of livelihood assistance grant; and (3) the need for the dismissed faculty members to submit resumes to be able to benefit from the Government’s offer of facilitation of employment applications to other government services pending resolution of reinstatement case. A second meeting was held on 15 July 2010 in Iloilo City, the agenda items being the pending application for employment of some members and the different project proposals for livelihood. The complainant qualifies the second meeting as frustrating and degrading, since the Government allegedly tried to convince it to abandon its claims and allotted a very limited time.
4. 108. As regards the first item, the Government and the complainant indicate that the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) has written to the Court of Appeals to expedite the cases on 4 May 2010. The complainant informs in its communication dated 23 March 2011, that a ruling in favour of the University was handed down concerning the legality of the dismissal of the USAEU committee and that it has filed a motion for reconsideration in a timely fashion. The Government indicates that, in the case relating to the nullification of the election of officers in 2006, a resolution dated 29 July 2010 was issued directing the parties to file simultaneous memorandum.
5. 109. With respect to the livelihood assistance grant, the complainant indicates that one of the options envisaged at the first meeting had been the submission of individual project proposals and that they submitted them on 4 May 2010. According to the Government, the livelihood assistance grant failed to take off, as, contrary to the instructions at the meeting on 12 April 2010 to submit a consolidated project proposal, the dismissed faculty members submitted individual project proposals. The Government adds that the FFW is currently trying to facilitate a consolidated project proposal for the affected officers, and that DOLE has set aside 535,000 Philippine pesos (PHP) (approximately US$12,370) as initial funding for this purpose, since July 2010. In the complainant’s view, the fact that the Government subsequently insisted on a group proposal and the fulfilment of other stringent requirements is a display of insincerity on its part; the complainant also alleges that the Government has never informed it about the sum set aside for the purposes of livelihood assistance.
6. 110. As regards the endorsement or facilitation of the applications for employment with the different government offices, the complainant states that it submitted the resumes two days after the first meeting. According to the Government, the ban for hiring in government offices prior to the 10 May 2010 National Election hindered an immediate DOLE response. Both the complainant and the Government indicate that on 16 and 18 August 2010 the DOLE endorsed several employment applications of Mr Lasola and his group to the Commission on Elections in Region VI (COMELEC) and to the Technical and Educational Skills Authority (TESDA). In its communication dated 23 March 2011, the complainant criticizes that, almost one year after the Government had requested their resumes, none of the dismissed faculty members has been employed, although according to the media there were 50,000 vacancies in Government services after 30 June 2010. The Government explains that COMELEC has no vacancies at the moment but the employment applications will be given priority consideration once there are vacancies, and that hiring at TESDA is yet to commence.
7. 111. Finally, the Government indicates that exploratory meetings with the university management regarding the possibility of reinstatement took place on 12 April, 26 May and 14 July 2010. The University firmly stressed its position that, given the finality of the Supreme Court decision, the reinstatement of Mr Lasola and his group was not part of an exploratory solution but signalled that it was open to talks on extending assistance to the dismissed workers.
8. 112. The Committee notes the information above. In particular, it notes with interest the points agreed upon by the complainant and the Government at the meeting on 12 April 2010. In this regard, it expects that adequate livelihood assistance will, including by simplifying and accelerating the relevant procedures, be granted without delay to the dismissed workers.
9. 113. Furthermore, the Committee notes with regret the decision of the Court of Appeals dated 30 November 2010, according to which the dismissal of the USAEU committee was judged legal on the grounds that the union officers had participated in an illegal strike (the strike being illegal due to defiance of assumption of jurisdiction and return-to-work orders). The Committee recalls that the union officers were dismissed for not having ensured immediate compliance with an assumption of jurisdiction order issued under section 263(g) of the Labor Code which has been repeatedly found to be contrary to freedom of association principles. The Committee once again recalls in this regard that it has always considered that sanctions for strike action should be possible only where the prohibitions in question are in conformity with the principles of freedom of association [see 350th Report, para. 199]. Noting that the complainant filed a motion for reconsideration on 24 January 2011, the Committee expects that full account will be taken in practice of the principle above, and requests the Government to continue to take active steps to intercede with the parties for the purpose of conciliating a solution, bearing in mind the Committee’s previous recommendations to ensure that the USAEU committee members who were dismissed further to their participation in strike action are reinstated immediately in their jobs under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the strike with compensation for lost wages and benefits. In the meantime, noting with interest the Government’s indication that the workers whose applications were endorsed for the vacancies at TESDA and COMELEC will have priority in case of future vacancies, the Committee trusts that, pending a mutually satisfactory settlement, the Government’s efforts to facilitate the employment of the dismissed union officers will soon bear fruit. It requests to be kept informed of the progress made with a view to a speedy and equitable resolution of this long-standing case.
10. 114. Noting the complainant’s indication that a second set of union officers allegedly controlled by the university management was elected on 4 December 2010, the Committee notes with regret that the Government does not provide any information on the Committee’s previous recommendations with regard to the allegations of employer interference (financial incentives for trade union members to vote for another committee). The Committee recalls that Article 2 of Convention No. 98 establishes the total independence of workers’ organizations from employers in exercising their activities [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, para. 855] and that Article 3 requires the establishment of an effective mechanism of protection in this regard. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any ruling handed down in the ongoing legal proceedings for nullification of the election of union officers. It urges the Government to ensure that if the allegations of employer interference are confirmed, all necessary measures of redress are taken, including sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee requests to be kept informed of all developments in this respect.
11. 115. Noting finally with deep regret that the Government still does not supply any information on the requested independent inquiry into the allegations of anti-union discrimination in the Eon Philippines Industries Corporation and the Capiz Emmanuel Hospital in Roxas City, the Committee once again urges the Government to take all necessary measures in this respect and, if the acts of anti-union discrimination are confirmed, to take measures to ensure that the workers concerned are reinstated in their posts without loss of pay.