Position Paper Labor Union Group

Republic of the Philippines
Department of Labor and Employment
Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators
National Capital Region
Makati City
Doroy, Samahan ng Malayang

Manggagawa sa Wisteria
(SMMW)
Complainant,
-versus-
Wisteria Company,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
1
Complainants, Doroy Navarito, Samahan ng Malayang
Manggagawa sa Wisteria (SMMW), through counsel and unto the
Honorable Panel, most respectfully submits this Position Paper and
respectfully states: THAT - -
I. PREFATORY STATEMENT
The Complainants in this case are DOROY NAVARITO together with his
duly recognized labor union Samahan ng Malayang Manggagawa sa
Wisteria (SMMW), with an address at 2219 Recto Ave, Sampaloc,
Manila, 1008 Metro Manila, where the said complainants could be served
with summons and other legal processes of this Honorable Office.
The Respondent is Wisteria Company (hereinafter referred to as

“WC” for brevity), represented by Group 1(for Employer) as its HR Head,
a garment factory employing more than 700 employees. On which 500
employees are regular employees while others are either probationary or
contractual employees, it had its business address at 2219 Recto Ave,
Sampaloc, Manila, 1008 Metro Manila, where the said establishment and
representative could also be served with summons and other legal
processes of this Honorable Office.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Complainants, SMMW, were a newly organized labor union on which

20 of its members including its president DOROY NAVARITO were laid
off only 2 weeks after its inception because of an alleged just cause. The
alleged cause was that the raw materials from abroad have been coming
late and according to the company’s supplier, it would take sometime
before the supply will become stable. Sensing that the real cause of their
2
dismissal was for the management to bust the union, Doroy and the
officers of the union called their members for a meeting. During the
meeting, it was reported that the company has been taking out materials
from the warehouse and delivering them to its small subcontractors. In the
same meeting, the union decided to implement a strike to paralyzed the
company operations which would pressure the management to give in to
their demands:
(1) immediate recall of the laid off employees;
(2) regularization of more than 150
workers;
(3) payment of daily wage rates in lieu of piece rate pays;
(4) payment of overtime, holiday, and rest day pays; and
(5) recognition of the union as the sole collective bargaining agent

of the employees in the company.
Unfazed by the strike, WC retaliated by issuing a return-to-work order and

threatened the striking employees with termination from work. The matter
was brought before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. The
conciliator of the Board asked the representatives of the parties to a
conference upon which the union and the management laid down their
respective demands. However, the first round of the negotiation resulted
in an impasse.
The strike went on its second week. This time, the company filed a
Petition to Declare the Strike Illegal and the Issuance of the Writ of
Injunction with a Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order. On the other
hand, the union opposed the petition contending that the strike is legal
especially that it was staged on the ground of union busting. It also filed a
counter-petition contending that the company is guilty of Illegal Lockout.
After failed negotiations, the parties eventually agreed to submit all issues
to a panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, hence, this position paper.
3
III. ISSUES
A.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT

VIOLATED THE COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT
TO SELF-ORGANIZATION PROTECTED
UNDER ARTICLE III, SECTION 8 OF THE
1987 CONSTITUTION IN RELATION TO
ARTICLE 247 OF THE LABOR CODE OF
THE PHILIPPINES CONSTITUTING UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES
B.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT

WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED BY THE
RESPONDENT-EMPLOYER
IV. ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION
A. First Cause of Action
THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED THE COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO SELF-

ORGANIZATION PROTECTED UNDER ARTICLE III, SECTION 8 OF THE
1987 CONSTITUTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 247 OF THE LABOR
CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES CONSTITUTING UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES
It is no less than the Constitution which affords laborers the right to form
organizations, for purposes not contrary to law, to promote the rights of
workers under the principle of social justice, giving bargaining power to the
4
laborers to promote their welfare and thereby reducing the evident
inequality between capital and labor. Article III, Section 8 of the 1987
Constitution specifically provides that:
“The right of the people, including those employed in the public and
private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for
purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged”.
The Labor Code of the Philippines, specifically, Article 247, provided for
the concept of “Unfair Labor Practices” which are practices that violate the
constitutional right of workers and employees to self-organization, are
inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management.
The Labor Code of the Philippines, specifically, Article 248, enumerated

the acts constituting unfair labor practices on the part of employers, to wit:
Art. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. It shall be unlawful for

an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice:
a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the

exercise of their right to self-organization;
XXX
c) To contract out services or functions being performed by

union members when such will interfere with, restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization;
XXX
(Emphasis Supplied)
The laying off of Duroy and twenty other employees for the reason that
the raw materials have been coming late is a mere fiction created by
Wisteria to illegally dismiss the workers thereby paralyzing the union in
violation of their right to self-organization and is a manifest act of unfair
labor practice since when in truth and in fact, Wisteria is taking out
materials from the warehouse and delivering them to its small
subcontractors.
5
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the employers committed unfair
labor practices.
B. Second Cause of Action
THE MANAGEMENT OF WISTERIA COMPANY VIOLATED THE SEC.

3 ARTICLE XIII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION WHICH AFFORDS THE
FULL PROTECTION OF LABOR WHEN IT TERMINATED THE
EMPLOYMENT OF DOROY AND 20 OTHER EMPLOYEES WITHOUT
JUST CAUSE.
Under article. 297 of the Labor Code, it provides that an employer may
validly terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
a.) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of

the lawful orders of his employer or representative with his work;
b.) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
c.) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in

him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
d.) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the

person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or
his duly authorized representatives; and
e.) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
In the case at bar, the dismissal of Doroy and 20 other employees did not
fall within the category listed above. The management of Wisteria
Company merely alleged that the raw materials from abroad have been
coming late. They failed to establish how this delay was attributable to the
dismissed employees. Neither did they specify the acts which constitute
gross and habitual neglect by the employees of their duties. Mere
allegation is not enough to validly dismiss their employees.
6
Moreover, the company failed to comply with the twin notice as provided
by the jurisprudence. The constitutional requirement of procedural due
process contemplates, “notice and opportunity to be heard before
judgment is rendered affecting one’s person or property”. (Montinola v.
PAL (2014)
The employer has the burden of proof that the dismissed worker has been
served two notices:
1. First written notice: specifying the ground(s) for termination and
giving the employee the reasonable opportunity within which to

explain his side.
2. Second written notice: indicating that upon due consideration of all
circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his

termination.
Clearly, the employer did not comply with either of the two notices, Doroy
and the twenty other employees were terminated without affording the
right to explain their side.
Based on the foregoing discussion, the employees were illegally

dismissed.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Office that judgment be rendered as follows:
1. Finding that Unfair Labor Practices was committed by the

Respondents;
2. ORDERING the respondents to pay the Complainant

actual, moral, and exemplary damages;
7
3. ORDERING the respondent to pay complainants 10% of
all their claims as and by way of Attorney’s fees.
4. Finding that the Complainant was illegally dismissed by the

Respondents;
5. ORDERING the respondents to reinstate the complainants

and pay the Complainant backwages, and 13th month pay.
8
VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATION
I, DOROY NAVARITO, of legal age, Filipino and with address at

Sampaloc, Manila, Philippines, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, hereby depose and say: THAT---
1. I am the Complainant in the above-captioned case.
2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing Position Paper.
3. I have read the contents thereof and attest that the same are
true and correct of my own knowledge and based on the records at
hand.
4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving

the same issues raised in the above-captioned case, in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court,
Metropolitan and Municipal Trial Court or any other tribunal or
agency.
5. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is

pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals Regional Trial
Court, Metropolitan and Municipal Trial Court, or any other tribunal
or agency.
6. Should it come to my knowledge that a similar action or

proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan and
9
Municipal Trial Court, or any other tribunal or agency, I hereby
undertake to notify the court or tribunal taking cognizance of the
above-entitled case of such fact within five (5) days from receipt of
such knowledge.
Doroy
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of September

2019 by the affiant who is personally known to me and he has likewise
exhibited to me his competent evidence of identity consisting of
_______________________________ with expiry on
____________________________.
Doc. No. ______; Notary Public
Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of 2023.
10

Position Paper Labor Union Group

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Position Paper Labor Union Group

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Position Paper Labor Union Group

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators

National Capital Region

Doroy, Samahan ng Malayang

The Respondent is Wisteria Company (hereinafter referred to as

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Complainants, SMMW, were a newly organized labor union on which

(1) immediate recall of the laid off employees;

(2) regularization of more than 150

(3) payment of daily wage rates in lieu of piece rate pays;

(4) payment of overtime, holiday, and rest day pays; and

(5) recognition of the union as the sole collective bargaining agent

Unfazed by the strike, WC retaliated by issuing a return-to-work order and

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT

WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT

IV. ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

A. First Cause of Action

THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED THE COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO SELF-

The Labor Code of the Philippines, specifically, Article 248, enumerated

Art. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. It shall be unlawful for

a) To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the

c) To contract out services or functions being performed by

B. Second Cause of Action

THE MANAGEMENT OF WISTERIA COMPANY VIOLATED THE SEC.

a.) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of

b.) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

c.) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in

d.) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the

e.) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

giving the employee the reasonable opportunity within which to

circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his

Based on the foregoing discussion, the employees were illegally

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this

1. Finding that Unfair Labor Practices was committed by the

2. ORDERING the respondents to pay the Complainant

4. Finding that the Complainant was illegally dismissed by the

5. ORDERING the respondents to reinstate the complainants

I, DOROY NAVARITO, of legal age, Filipino and with address at

1. I am the Complainant in the above-captioned case.

2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing Position Paper.

4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving

5. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is

6. Should it come to my knowledge that a similar action or

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of September

Doc. No. ______; Notary Public

Page No. ______;

Book No. ______;

You might also like