|
Saturday, September 09, 2006
29 sacked workers of state-run newspaper get back posts
THE Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the reinstatement of 29 illegally retrenched employees of the formerly government-sequestered Philippine Journalist Inc. (PJI) to their previous positions as well as the payment of full back wages and all other benefits.
In a decision penned by SC Associate Justice Romeo Callejo Sr., the SC First Division affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) ruling in favor of the complaint filed by the Journal Employees Union assailing the dismissal of their members in the publication firm in 2002.
The CA, in its decision, ordered respondents PJI officers Bobby dela Cruz, president; Arnold Bañares, executive vice president and lawyer Ruby Ruiz Bruno, chief legal officer to pay the 29 dismissed employees and 50 others, whose salaries and benefits were illegally reduced under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
The SC agreed with the findings of the appellate court that the PJI's retrenchment program was part of a scheme to circumvent the provisions of the Labor Code.
It noted that the PJI immediately rehired as contractual employees some of those who were retrenched and gave them five-month contracts and later offered them regular positions with salaries lower than their previous salaries.
"The Labor Code explicitly prohibits the diminution of employee's benefits. Clearly, the situation in the case at bar is one of the things the provision on security of tenure seeks to prevent," the SC ruled.
The high court said the compromise agreement entered by employees with PJI is binding only to the 31 employees who signed it and not to the new complainants.
"In any event, the compromise agreement cannot bind a party who did not voluntarily take part in the settlement itself and gave specific individual consent. It must be remembered that a compromise agreement is also a contract; it requires the consent of the parties and it is only then that the agreement may be considered as voluntarily entered into" the SC said.
The case stemmed from the complaint filed by the union before the National labor Relations Commission (NLRC) assailing the dismissal of their members and praying that they be reinstated with payment of full back wages and all other benefits from the date of their dismissal on July 3, 2002 up to the actual date of reinstatement.
The union claimed that the 29 employees were illegally dismissed after they rejected the company's plan to reduce their salaries by 40 to 50 percent. On the other hand, the union said the salaries of 50 other employees were illegally reduced by the PJI management.
In its resolution dated July 31, 2002, the NLRC ruled that the complainants were not illegally dismissed.
The NLRC also noted that its May 31, 2001 resolution declaring the retrenchment program of PJI illegal did not attain finality as it had been academically mooted by the compromise agreement entered into by 31 other complainant employees.
Under the agreement, the PJI would reinstate the 31 employees effective July 1, 2001 without loss of seniority rights and benefits.
The union however appealed the NLRC decision before the CA through a petition for certiorari.
The CA reversed the NLRC ruling on Aug. 17, 2004 saying that it gravely abused its discretion in ruling in favor of PJI.
The appellate court said the compromise agreement referred only to the award given by the NLRC to the complainants in the case. It stressed that the NLRC resolution declared that PJI failed to prove the validity of its retrenchment program.
The unfavorable ruling of the CA prompted the respondents to elevate the case tp the high court. (ECV/Sunnex)
(September 9, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
|
