Labor 2 Roee

University of Immaculate Conception v. Sec. of LaborAzcuna, J.

Under what topic: Management prerogative

Petitioner: UNIVERSITY OF IMMACULATE, CONCEPCION, INC.

Respondent: THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR, THE UIC TEACHING AND NON-TEACHING PERSONNEL AND EMPLOYEES UNION, LELIAN CONCON, MARY ANN DE RAMOS, JOVITA MAMBURAM, ANGELINA ABADILLA, MELANIE DE LA ROSA, ZENAIDA CANOY, ALMA VILLACARLOS, JOSIE BOSTON, PAULINA PALMA GIL, GEMMA GALOPE, LEAH CRUZA, DELFA DIAPUEZ

Synopsis: The University and its Union had a collective bargaining dispute which led to the Union going on strike. The Secretary of Labor took cognizance of the dispute pursuant to Art 263(g) of the LC, and ordered the parties to desist from committing acts which would exacerbate the dispute. University then terminated some employees who are part of the Union but according to University are not included in the scope of the bargaining unit. The Secretary of Labor issued an order suspending the effects of the termination of the employees. University thus questions the power of the Secretary to do so.

Doctrine: The Secretary of Labor did not exceed her jurisdiction in issuing the order. Although the Constitution and the LC promote voluntary modes of settling dispute, the management prerogative to do so is not absolute. One exception is when the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction pursuant to Art 263(g). The Secretary having assumed jurisdiction, it does not matter whether or not the terminated employees are part of the bargaining unit. Any act which would exacerbate the labor dispute, such as the dismissal of the employees, should not be allowed.

Facts:1. Petitioner University (P) and respondent union

(R) submitted its collective bargaining proposals but the scope of the bargaining unit was left unresolved as to the positions of secretaries, registrars, accounting personnel, and guidance counselors

2. The said matter was resolved in voluntary arbitration excluding the mentioned positions in the bargaining unit

3. R moved for a recon, and pending the decision, it filed a notice of strike with NCMB. Two union members were dismissed by P. Consequently, R went on strike

4. SoL assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute ordering all workers to return to work within 24 hours and for Management to accept them back under same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike

5. Voluntary Arbitration panel denied R’s MR6. P gave individual respondents (IRs) 2 choices: to

resign from the union and remain employed as confidential ees or resign from their confidential

positions and remain members of the union but the respondents insisted so the P sent notices of termination

7. Union filed another notice of strike because of P’s termination of IRs, that this is in violation of the order of SoL

8. SoL issued another order reiterating previous orders and directed P to reinstate IRs

9. P moved to reconsider saying that SoL’s order would render nugatory the decision of voluntary arbitrators; 3 MRs denied

Issue/s - Holding:THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE ORDERS OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR THAT SUSPENDED THE EFFECTS OF THE TERMINATION OF TWELVE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE NOT PART OF THE BARGAINING UNIT – NO

Ratio:

Labor 2 Roee

The court recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives but the privilege is not absolute, and subject to exceptions as stated in PAL v. NLRC

Exceptions:o When SoL assumes jurisdiction over labor

disputes involving industries indispensable to the national interest as stated in Article 263(g) of LC

Also, the directive to the parties to refrain from performing acts that will exacerbate the situation is intended to ensure that the dispute does not get out of hand

o However, P’s act of suspending and terminating union members and the Union’s act of filing another Notice of Strike after this Office has assumed jurisdiction are certainly in conflict with the status quo ante

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 8, 2001 and its Resolution dated January 10, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 61693 are AFFIRMED.