The management of a metal factory in the
industrial belt of Silang, Cavite has responded to complaints of interference
in the exercise of the freedom to associate and inadvertently confessed to
doing so. While management vehemently denied interfering, it nonetheless owned
up to several instances of unfair labor practice—convening a meeting of workers
to discuss the issue of unionization, investigating the documents of the union
being organized, and even spreading the news of the union formation to workers
resulting in confusion. All of these are an open-and-shut admission of
management interference in the workers’ right to unionize.
In a letter-reply to the Business and
Human Rights Resource Centre (https://business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Taifini-response-Sept-2016.pdf),
the management of Taifini through its legal counsel, said that “September 2 –
Management held a general assembly with all its workers, including union
members and officers. In the said assembly, the matter of the formation of the
union was discussed and management emphasized that it respects the
constitutional right of its workers to self-organize.”
Management using its authority to convene a general
assembly of its all employees to discuss the formation of the union falls
entirely within the ambit of unfair labor practice.
In the
Labor Code of the Philippines, it is stated that “Art.
248. Unfair labor practices of employers. It shall be unlawful for an employer to
commit any of the following unfair labor practice: 1. To interfere with,
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization; …”
Further, in the letter-reply, it is declared that “3rd week of August – TCCI’s [Taifini]
Human Resources (HR) Department got hold of all the registration documents
submitted by the Union to DOLE. As part of HR’s responsibility, these documents
were scrutinized mainly for verification and to ensure adherence to set
rules/laws in the formation of the Union… After the receipt of the documents
and thus a confirmation of the Union’s registration, news of its formation
spread among the workers… As a consequence, there was confusion…”
The
only conclusion one can arrive at here is that management itself spread the news
of about the union formation. Once more this is confirmation of the union’s
complaint that management personnel such as supervisors and managers talked to
workers about unionization and harassed them to refrain from joining or to resign
from the organization. No doubt, it created confusion, as Taifini’s own
statement averred.
And as
a last but very important point, it is unlawful for the company through its
human resources department (HR) to verify and scrutinize the formation of the
union for adherence to the law. This is the responsibility of the State through
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). For management to do so
constitutes interference in the freedom to associate.
Article 2(1) of the ILO Convention No.
98 mandates that organizations of employers and workers are to enjoy “adequate
protection against acts of interference by each other or each other’s agents or
members in their establishment, functioning or administration.”
Taifini management will no doubt try
to explain away each of these instances and even contend that in each case it
was motivated by good intentions. But all these instances taken together, alongside
other cases of harassment, using the “totality of conduct doctrine” leads to no
other conclusion than that Taifini management did interfere in the freedom to
associate and is trying to bust the newly formed union.
Aside from these instances of unfair
labor practice, Taifini undertook other concrete steps as part of a campaign of
retaliation and harassment. Management stopped overtime work for workers resulting in a reduction in take home pay. In the same Article 248 of the Labor Code, it is
clearly spelled out that it is 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.”
Also the president of the union was
also demoted from his position as machine operator to mere helper, without just
cause and without due process. Likewise, management sent two of its HR
personnel to file a protest during the hearing of the union’s pending petition
for certification as bargaining agent.
To redress the transgression of the
freedom of association of Taifini workers, the union demands first of all, that
the company issue a memorandum to be posted in two conspicuous places inside
the factory stating that:
1. It respects the right of its employees
to unionize;
2. It prohibits management personnel such
as supervisors and managers from discussing unionization with workers,
including joining or resigning from the union;
3. It upholds the code of conduct of its
customers, specifically compliance with workers right to organize a union.
The union likewise calls for the customer
code of conduct provision on respect for freedom of association to be similarly
posted in the factory premises.
Further the union insists that the
union president be reinstated to his former position. Finally, the union calls
for withdrawal of the protest of the two HR personnel against the union’s petition
for certification.
September 16, 2016
