Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    Case No 6 - Viviero

    Uploaded by

    Frances Kaye Cerveza
    Viviero was dismissed from his job as a seaman in 1994. He filed a complaint with his union per the collective bargaining agreement, but the grievance process did not resolve the dispute. He then filed with the POEA, but respondents argued it lacked jurisdiction since the CBA required arbitration. The NLRC disagreed and sent the case back to the labor arbiter. However, the Court of Appeals sided with respondents' view that the CBA made arbitration mandatory. The Supreme Court then took up the case to determine if the NLRC could handle illegal dismissal disputes even when a CBA specifies arbitration.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case No 6 - Viviero

    Uploaded by

    Frances Kaye Cerveza
    11 views3 pages
    Viviero was dismissed from his job as a seaman in 1994. He filed a complaint with his union per the collective bargaining agreement, but the grievance process did not resolve the dispute. He then filed with the POEA, but respondents argued it lacked jurisdiction since the CBA required arbitration. The NLRC disagreed and sent the case back to the labor arbiter. However, the Court of Appeals sided with respondents' view that the CBA made arbitration mandatory. The Supreme Court then took up the case to determine if the NLRC could handle illegal dismissal disputes even when a CBA specifies arbitration.

    Original Title

    Case No 6- Viviero

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Viviero was dismissed from his job as a seaman in 1994. He filed a complaint with his union per the collective bargaining agreement, but the grievance process did not resolve the dispute. He then filed with the POEA, but respondents argued it lacked jurisdiction since the CBA required arbitration. The NLRC disagreed and sent the case back to the labor arbiter. However, the Court of Appeals sided with respondents' view that the CBA made arbitration mandatory. The Supreme Court then took up the case to determine if the NLRC could handle illegal dismissal disputes even when a CBA specifies arbitration.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    11 views3 pages

    Case No 6 - Viviero

    Uploaded by

    Frances Kaye Cerveza
    Viviero was dismissed from his job as a seaman in 1994. He filed a complaint with his union per the collective bargaining agreement, but the grievance process did not resolve the dispute. He then filed with the POEA, but respondents argued it lacked jurisdiction since the CBA required arbitration. The NLRC disagreed and sent the case back to the labor arbiter. However, the Court of Appeals sided with respondents' view that the CBA made arbitration mandatory. The Supreme Court then took up the case to determine if the NLRC could handle illegal dismissal disputes even when a CBA specifies arbitration.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Case # 6

    Viviero vs. CA, GR # 138938, October 4, 2000

    Facts:
     Petitioner Vivero, a licensed seaman, is a member of the Associated Marine
    Officers and Seamen’s Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP).

     On grounds of very poor performance and conduct, refusal to perform his job,
    refusal to report to the Captain or the vessel’s Engineers or cooperate with
    other ship officers about the problem in cleaning the cargo holds or of the
    shipping pump and his dismal relations with the Captain of the vessel,
    complainant was repatriated on 15 July 1994.

     On 01 August 1994, complainant filed a complaint for illegal dismissal at


    Associated Marine Officers’ and Seaman’s Union of the Philippines (AMOSUP) of
    which complainant was a member.

     Pursuant to Article XII of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, grievance


    proceedings were conducted.
     However, parties failed to reach and settle the dispute amicably, thus, on
    November 28, 1994, complainant filed a complaint with the Philippine
    Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
     While the case was pending before the POEA, private respondents filed a
    Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the POEA had no jurisdiction
    over the case considering petitioner Vivero’s failure to refer it to a
    Voluntary Arbitration Committee in accordance with the CBA between
    the parties.

     Upon the enactment of RA 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos
    Act of 1995, the case was transferred to the Adjudication Branch of the National
    Labor Relations Commission.
     The Labor Arbiter, on the basis of the pleadings and documents available
    on record, rendered a decision dismissing the Complaint for want of
    jurisdiction.
     NLRC set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter on the ground that the
    record was clear that petitioner had exhausted his remedy by submitting
    his case to the Grievance Committee of AMOSUP.
     The NLRC then remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter for further
    proceedings.
     Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by
    the NLRC.

     Private respondents raised the case to the Court of Appeals contending that
    the provision in the CBA requiring a dispute which remained unresolved by the
    1
    Grievance Committee to be referred to a Voluntary Arbitration Committee, was
    mandatory in character in view of the CBA between the parties.
     The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of private respondents.

     Hence, this appeal.

    Issue: Whether or not the NLRC is deprived of jurisdiction over illegal dismissal cases
    whenever a CBA provides for grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration
    proceedings.

    Ruling:
     The argument is untenable.
     The case is primarily a termination dispute.
     It is clear from the claim/assistance request form submitted by petitioner to
    AMOSUP that he was challenging the legality of his dismissal for lack of cause
    and lack of due process.
     The issue of whether there was proper interpretation and implementation of
    the CBA provisions comes into play only because the grievance procedure
    provided for in the CBA was not observed after he sought his Union’s assistance
    in contesting his termination.
     Thus, the question to be resolved necessarily springs from the primary issue of
    whether there was a valid termination; without this, then there would be no
    reason to invoke the need to interpret and implement the CBA provisions
    properly.
     In San Miguel Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, this Court held
    that the phrase “all other labor disputes” may include termination disputes
    provided that the agreement between the Union and the Company states “in
    unequivocal language that the parties conform to the submission of termination
    disputes and unfair labor practices to voluntary arbitration.”
     Ergo, it is not sufficient to merely say that parties to the CBA agree on the
    principle that “all disputes” should first be submitted to a Voluntary Arbitrator.
     There is a need for an express stipulation in the CBA that illegal termination
    disputes should be resolved by a Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary
    Arbitrators, since the same fall within a special class of disputes that are
    generally within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters by express
    provision of law.
     Absent such express stipulation, the phrase “all disputes” should be
    construed as limited to the areas of conflict traditionally within the
    jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators, i.e., disputes relating to contract-
    interpretation, contract-implementation, or interpretation or
    enforcement of company personnel policies. Illegal termination
    disputes not falling within any of these categories should then be

    2
    considered as a special area of interest governed by a specific
    provision of law.

     WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE and the
    case is remanded to the Labor Arbiter to dispose of the case with dispatch
    until terminated considering the undue delay already incurred.

    ***SIMPLIFIED FACTS:

    Vivero, a licensed seaman and member of AMOSUP, was repatriated in July 1994 due to
    poor performance and conduct issues. He filed an illegal dismissal complaint with
    AMOSUP in August 1994, triggering grievance proceedings as per the Collective
    Bargaining Agreement (CBA). When no resolution was reached, he filed a complaint
    with POEA in November 1994.
    Private respondents moved to dismiss, citing POEA's lack of jurisdiction as Vivero
    didn't refer the case to a Voluntary Arbitration Committee per the CBA. RA 8042
    transferred the case to the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction,
    but the NLRC disagreed, stating Vivero had exhausted remedies with the Grievance
    Committee. The NLRC sent the case back to the Labor Arbiter, rejecting the
    respondents' Motion for Reconsideration.
    Private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing the mandatory nature of
    the CBA provision requiring disputes to go to a Voluntary Arbitration Committee. The
    Court of Appeals sided with private respondents, leading to this current appeal.

    You might also like