University of The Immaculate Conception Vs Sec of Labor

University of the Immaculate Conception vs Sec of Labor
GR 151379
Facts:
This case stemmed from the collective bargaining negotiations between petitioner University of
Immaculate Concepcion, Inc. (UNIVERSITY) and respondent The UIC Teaching and Non- Teaching
Personnel and Employees Union (UNION). The UNION, as the certified bargaining
agent of all rank and file employees of the UNIVERSITY, submitted its collective bargaining proposals to
the latter on February 16, 1994. However, one item was left unresolved and this was the inclusion or
exclusion of some positions in the scope of the bargaining unit.
The UNION it filed a notice of strike on the grounds of bargaining deadlock and ULP. During the thirty
(30) day cooling-off period, two union members were dismissed by petitioner. Consequently, the UNION
went on strike.
On January 23, 1995, the then Secretary of Labor, Ma. Nieves R. Confessor, issued an Order assuming
jurisdiction over the labor dispute.
On March 10, 1995, the UNION filed another notice of strike, this time citing as a reason the
UNIVERSITY’s termination of the individual respondents. The UNION alleged that the UNIVERSITY’s act
of terminating the individual respondents is in violation of the Order of the Secretary of Labor.
On March 28, 1995, the Secretary of Labor issued another Order reiterating the directives contained in
the January 23, 1995 Order. Hence, the UNIVERSITY was directed to reinstate the individual respondents
under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the labor dispute.
The UNIVERSITY filed a MR. In the Order dated August 18, 1995, then Acting Secretary Jose S. Brilliantes
denied the MR, but modified the two previous Orders by adding:
Anent the Union’s Motion, we find that superseding circumstances would not warrant the physical
reinstatement of the twelve (12) terminated employees.
Hence, they are hereby ordered placed under payroll reinstatement until thevalidity of their termination
is finally resolved.
Issue: WON payroll reinstatement, instead of actual reinstatement, is proper.
Held:
With respect to the Secretary’s Order allowing payroll reinstatement instead of actual reinstatement for
the individual respondents herein, an amendment to the previous Orders issued by her office, the same
is usually not allowed. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code aforementioned states that all workers must
1
immediately return to work and all employers
must readmit all of them under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.
The phrase “under the same terms and conditions” makes it clear that the norm is actual reinstatement.
This is consistent with the idea that any work stoppage or slowdown in that
particular industry can be detrimental to the national interest.
In ordering payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement, then Acting Secretary of Labor Jose S.
Brillantes said:
Anent the Union’s Motion, we find that superseding circumstances would not warrant the
physical reinstatement of the twelve (12) terminated employees. Hence, they are hereby ordered
placed under payroll reinstatement until the validity of their termination is finally resolved.
As an exception to the rule, payroll reinstatement must rest on special circumstances that render actual
reinstatement impracticable or otherwise not conducive to attaining the purposes of the law.
The “superseding circumstances” mentioned by the Acting Secretary of Labor no doubt refer to the final
decision of the panel of arbitrators as to the confidential nature of the positions of the twelve private
respondents, thereby rendering their actual and physical reinstatement impracticable and more likely to
exacerbate the situation. The payroll reinstatement in lieu of actual reinstatement ordered in these
cases, therefore, appears justified as an exception to the rule until the validity of their termination is
finally resolved. This Court sees no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Acting Secretary of Labor
in ordering the same. Furthermore, the issue has not been raised by any party in this case.
Petition denied.

University of The Immaculate Conception Vs Sec of Labor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of The Immaculate Conception Vs Sec of Labor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of The Immaculate Conception Vs Sec of Labor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of the Immaculate Conception vs Sec of Labor

You might also like