Guidelines on the Exercise of Workers' Rights

After a series of national and regional consultations, the guidelines on the conduct of concerned government agencies in relation to the exercise of workers’ rights and activities was officially signed on May 7, 2012 at The Bayleaf, Intramuros, Manila.

The guidelines, officially known as the “Guidelines on the Conduct of the DOLE, DILG, DND, DOJ, AFP and PNP Relative to the Exercise of Workers’ Rights and Activities”, prescribes the official conduct of the members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, including the CAFGU Active Auxiliaries and Special CAFGU Active Auxiliaries, Philippine National Police and the Baranggay Tanod relative to the exercise of workers’ right to self-organization and collective bargaining.

It seeks to address obstacles to the effective exercise of trade union rights and violence against trade unionists, including allegation of militarization of workplaces and impunity in the Philippines which, according to International Labor Organization, take place in the Philippines.

In 2009, the ILO noted that the Philippines had issues and gaps, in law and in practice, in the application of International Labor Standards: Those relating to violence, intimidation, threat and harassment of trade unionists and an absence of conviction in relation to those crimes; and Obstacles to the effective exercise of trade union rights. Included in these issues are the allegations of harassment, intimidation, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings and militarization of the workplaces by the military and police forces.

The Guidelines, which is an offshoot of the Manifesto of Commitment signed by DOLE, Armed Forces of the Philippines and labor groups, seeks to address the issues with the end view of “promoting and protecting human rights and workers’ rights at all times in pursuit of lasting peace based on social justice.” 

Promoting Workers' Rights

In a bid to intensify efforts to promote and protect the fundamental rights of workers, the Department of Labor and Employment, Philippine National Police and labor groups sign a Manifesto of Commitment outlining future actions and commitments to ensure observance of International Labour Standards and trade union rights.

The Manifesto articulates the commitments of DOLE, PNP and the labor sector “to promote and protect human rights and workers rights at all times in pursuit of lasting peace based on social justice.”

It also articulates the commitment of the parties to conduct social dialogue to “ensure observance of the Joint DOLE-PNP-PEZA Guidelines in the Conduct of PNP Personnel, Economic Zone Police and Security Guards, Company Security Guards and Similar Personnel During Labor Disputes; establish a mechanism to allow the joint implementation and monitoring of the Guidelines; support initiatives for justice system reforms to facilitate the resolution of alleged extra-judicial killings, specifically to strengthen forensic investigations; and conduct joint activities to achieve the goals of the Manifesto.”

The Guidelines, signed on May 23, 2011, officially prescribes the conduct of the members of the PNP, economic zone police and security guards, company security guards and similar personnel, including concerned government agencies, during strikes, lockouts, picketing and other labor disputes. It seeks to promote public interest and safety, industrial peace and stability, and ensure that the right to peaceful picketing, strikes and concerted activities by workers and lockout by employers is respected at all times.

Signatories to the Manifesto are Sec. Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz and former DOLE Undersecretary now POEA Administrator Hans Leo Cacdac for the DOLE, Police Director General Nicanor Bartolome and P/Sr. Supt. Gregorio Pua for the PNP, and representatives from the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines, Federation of Free Workers, Alliance of Independent Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union, Pambansang Diwa ng Mangggawang Pilipino, National Confederation of Labor, Association of Genuine Labor Organization, National Federation of Labor Unions, Lakas ng Manggagawa Center, and Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino for the labor sector.

Signatories to the Manifesto also committed to “actively sustain and conduct joint orientation in the national, regional and provincial level, together with other relevant partners, to raise the awareness of all government and non-government sectors towards consciously adhering to and abiding with the provisions of the Philippine Constitution, Labor Code of the Philippines, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Labor Standards, particularly ILO Convention Nos. 87 and 98, International Humanitarian Law, and other international treaties, accords and instruments where the Philippines is a signatory.”

The Manifesto was signed during the Summit on the Protection and Promotion of Workers’ Rights held on Dec. 6, 2011 at the Bayleaf in Intramuros, Manila, and organized by the Bureau of Labor Relations.

Whatever Happened to Karnation 20?

Whatever happened to the case of Karnation 20 whose members until now are still fighting for justice? I had a little idea about this case until I came across the website of the Center for Trade Union and Human Rights, a labor NGO based in Quezon City. The organization has been seeking support for the workers to be acquitted.

As a backgrounder, the case is about a group of workers a.k.a. Karnation 20 that was arrested and jailed after allegedly padlocking and barricading the company premises of Karnation Industries and Export Inc. a company that manufactures home decors and accessories. The strike allegedly prohibited other employees from going outside the company and this prompted the company to file a charge of serious illegal detention against the striking workers. It happened in 2007 and until now the case is still unresolved. Sadly, two (2) of the workers have already died in prison due to tuberculosis and other health complications.

To secure their temporary liberty, some of the accused posted bail for the amount of 60,000. Complainant, however, moved to increase the bail from 60,000 to 80,000 to which the court (RTC Branch 80, Morong, Rizal) granted. Accused had no choice but to post an additional 20,000 although they moved to set aside the order for the bail increase. On 25 July 2011, however, the judge denied with finality the motion and gave the accused until 31 December 2011 to post the additional 20,000 bail.

The latest update is that twelve (12) of the accused were able to post the additional P20,000 bail before the date set by the court while two (2) of them have yet to post the additional 20,000 bail. Trial is still ongoing and it seems that, for the members of Karnation 20, seeking justice is still far from over.  

Tripartism Stakeholders

Malacañang has released the appointment of the members of the reconstituted Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (TIPC), the national consultative and advisory body on labor and employment policymaking.

Created pursuant to Executive Order 403, Series 1990, issued by former Pres. Cory Aquino, the TIPC was reconstituted to ensure effective consultation among representatives of the government, employers and workers in the formulation and implementation of labor and employment policies.

According to the Department of Labor and Employment, the TIPC was last reconstituted in June 2001 following the resignations of most of the labor sector representatives. The DOLE, however, recognizes the need to reconstitute the TIPC membership to be consistent with Pres. Aquino’s directive for inclusive tripartism and social dialogue.

The TIPC is composed of representatives from the government and 20 representatives each from the employers’ and workers’ sectors. 

The members representing the employers’ sector are Aniano Bagabaldo, Ernesto Cecilia, Rene Cristobal, Francisco Floro, Edgardo Lacson, Vicente Leogardo Jr., Manolito Adolfo Madrasto, Mario Mamon, Jorge Mendiola, Mary Ng, Sergio Ortiz-Luiz Jr., Ranulfo Payos, Eduardo Rondain, Anton Sayo, Rene Soriano, Ancheta Khan, Feleciano Torres, Jesus Varela, Schubert Caesar Austero and Emerico De Guzman.

Representing the workers’ sector are former Sen. Ernesto Herrera, Benjamin Alar, Norberto Alensuela Sr., Manuel Arias, Victorino Balais, Angelito Calderon, Gregorio Del Prado, Zoilo Dela Cruz Jr., David Diwa, Daniel Edralin, Josua Mata, Jose Sonny Matula, Allan Montaño, Ezperanza Ocampo, Milagros Ogalinda, Gerardo Seno, Vladimir Tupaz, Jose Umali Jr., Jesus Villamor and AlejandroVillaviza.

The selection was made on the basis of the “most representative” criteria set forth in ILO Convention 144 (Tripartite Consultations to Promote the Implementation of International Labor Standards) which mandates the ratifying states to ensure effective consultation among representatives of the government, employers and workers on policy and programs concerns. The Philippines ratified the Convention in June 1991. 

Appointees from the employers’ sectors come from the Employers Confederation of the Philippines and its member-organizations including PHILEXPORT, Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, American Chamber of Commerce, Philippine Contructors Association, and Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Inc.

Appointees from the workers’ sector come from the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines, Federation of Free Workers, Alliance of Progressive Labor, Alliance of Filipino Workers, National Confederation of Labor, Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino, Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services, National Federation of Labor Unions, Bukluran ng Mangagawang Pilipino, Workers for the Advancement of Reforms Coalition, Lakas Manggagawa Labor Center, National Union of Bank Employees, and Alliance of Independent Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union.

Aside from being a policy consultative body, the TIPC also acts as a high level tripartite monitoring body on the application of international labor standards, particularly ILO Convention on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize (No. 87).  

Broadcast Production Assistants: Talents or Regular Employees?

The broadcast industry is indeed a unique industry insofar as labor and employment situations are concerned. Broadcast industry workers, which refer to radio and television employees, are said to have peculiar and special skills necessary to provide news and entertainment.

Under Policy Instruction No. 40 issued in 1979 by then Minister of Labor Blas D. Ople, the status of broadcast industry workers was classified into two: (1) station employees and (2) program employees. Station employees include those whose services are related to such operations as finance, administration, human resource, and marketing. They are workers who report to work during the normal working hours.

Program employees, on the other hand, are those whose skills, talents, or services are engaged by the station for a particular or specific program or undertaking. They are not required to observe normal working hours and on other days beyond the normal work hours observed by station employees.

In the above classification, production assistants (PAs) are included under the classification of program employees. However, the issue arises as to whether or not PAs, considering the nature of their job, are considered regular employees. Shall they be accorded the benefits under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) of rank-and-file employees?

In the case of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Callejo et al., G.R. No. 164156, Sept. 26, 2006, the Supreme Court settled the issue concerning the employment status of broadcast Pas. In the said case, respondents were Pas assigned at the news and public affairs for various radio programs in the ABS-CBN Cebu station. They were made to arrange airing of commercial broadcasting based on the daily operations log and digicart; coordinate with personalities for air interviews; prepare schedules of reporters for scheduled news reporting and lead-in or incoming reports; facilitate airtime schedule for public service announcements and complaints, assist the anchor in program interviews; and record clerical reports. They continuously performed the same Activities for an average of five years.

The petitioner company, however, contented the PAs are considered its talents or program employees, hence, not regular employees. It maintained that as program employee, A PA’s engagement is coterminous with the completion of the program, and may be extended or renewed provided that the program is on-going. A PA may also be assigned to new or other programs, as what actually happened to the respondent Pas when they were later assigned to non-drama programs, upon the cancellation of one program and the commencement of another or upon discretion of the management. Therefore, it posited that since Pas are not regular employees, they are not entitled to the benefits under the CBA.

The court, however, found the petitioner’s contention untenable and without merit. The court affirmed the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission, which cited the New Pacific Timber and Supply Company v. NLRC (385 Phil 93), that PAs were entitled to the benefits under the CBA because they were “regular employees who contributed to the profits of petitioner through their labor.” Even the Court of Appeals favored the NLRC ruling, stating that “production assistants are not mere project employees but regular employees who perform tasks necessary and desirable in the usual trade and business of the employer.”

The legal basis was found in Article 280 of the labor Code, which provides in part that “an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are necessary and desirable in the usual business and trade of the employer except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.”

The Court held that respondent PAs cannot be considered project or program employees because no evidence was presented to show that the duration and scope of the project were determined or specified at the time of their engagement.

Citing Universal Robina Corporation v. Catapang, 473 SCRA 189, the Court reiterated the test in determining whether one is a regular employee: “The primary standard, therefore, of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The connection can be determined by considering the nature of work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. Also, if the employee has been performing the job of at leas a year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely intermittent, the law deems repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists.”

The Court ruled that respondents were not hired by petitioner as talents: The fact that respondent received pre-agreed talent fees instead of salaries, that hey did not observe the required office hours, and that they were permitted to join other productions during their free time are not conclusive of the nature of their employment. Respondents cannot be considered talents because they are not actors or actresses or radio specialists or mere clerks of utility employees. They are regular employees who perform several different duties under the control and direction of ABS-CBN executives and supervisors.

Proven in the present case is the employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondents, which was not established in Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, 431 SCRA 538, and, therefore, cannot be applied to the case at bar because Sonza, by applying the control test, was found to be an independent contractor and not a regular employee. Thus, finding said respondent Pas as regular employees and not mere project employees, the Court held that they are entitled to the benefits provided for in the existing CBA between petitioner and its rank-and-file employees. (Written by Jerome Yanson for the Institute for Labor Studies, WorkLens, Vol. III, January – March 2007)

Workers' Friend or Enemy?

In the history of the Philippine labor relations, the armed forces have never engaged in a dialogue with the labor sector. You cannot think of a time or an instance that the armed personnel, touted as the protector of the people and the State, would sit down with the working class and talk about respecting the workers’ rights to self-organization and collective bargaining. But everything has become possible. The Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police are now positioning themselves as allies and friends of thelabor sector by way of engaging in social dialogue.

The question is: Does the labor sector really find an ally in them? Some say YES, some say NO. There are those who say that the security forces, especially the AFP, have managed to reinvent themselves and do away with the negative image attached to them by the public. They have successfully portrayed an image that they are indeed the protector of the Filipino people and they are here to maintain peace and security.

Unfortunately, though, some members of the labor sector, especially those who claim to be socialists, believe that the security forces are not sincere in their efforts to respect the workers’ rights to self-organization and collective bargaining. According to them, cases or instances of violations of workers’ rights still abound despite the projection of the security forces that they are pro-labor. Case in point is the alleged red-baiting and labelling of trade unions as communists by the AFP. Workers say that this is a clear violation of trade union rights. The armed forces, they say, should not brand the workers as communists based solely on their ideologies that are almost similar to that of the communists. Just because they believe in what the communists believe and share with their aspirations does not mean that they too are communists.

The security forces, however, are quick to react saying that they do not engage in such acts without basis or valid information. There is always due process involved in any acts or operations of the security personnel on labor dispute matters as emphasized in the AFP’s Internal Peace and Security Plan “Bayanihan.” The plan, according to AFP, is “a campaign for winning the peace” in the country. And how will the AFP implement the plan? It says the plan is implemented through what the AFP calls the whole-of-nation approach and the people-centered approach. The AFP has a lot of advocacy to do for the public, especially the workers, to understand, digest and believe this military language that it is speaking about.