Revisiting the Workers Plight and Labor Groups’ Plea

One sad thing to note on the recent worker’s Labor Day, aside from the overly- protracted struggle of the working class, is that PNoy rejects one of the most legitimate concerns of his “Boss”–security of tenure.

This issue has always been in the forefront of struggles for Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organizations since class consciousness struck the mind of progressive Crisanto Evangelista and led to the founding of the Partido Obrero (workers Party) and eventually , the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (Communist Party of the Philippines).

Although it was not discussed what aspect of security of tenure did the labor groups asked from PNoy, it is well noted that contractualization are among the bannering problems that these groups wanted to demolish.

These progressive groups (whether Marxist or not) traced the issue’s history when then President Corazon Aquino, the mother of PNoy, approved the amendment on the Labor Code of 1974 into what is now known as the Herrera law. This law was named after its proponent, former senator Ernesto Herrera, a known leader of the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP). They posit that the Herrera law expanded the system of contractualization which at first, were confined only on economic zones, but ultimately spread to factories that allegedly resulted into a massive massacre of jobs and massive lay off of workers.

The Herrera law allegedly allowed various forms of contractual employment. It brought widespread system of employing workers through layers upon layers of agencies. As a result, 90% of currently available jobs in the country are contractual in nature.

They said that the Herrera law deprived the workers of their right to job security and thus placed the workers in a vulnerable position for exploitation by capitalists. Substantiating their claim, they never failed to narrate the PLDT lay-off in 1995. From 16,000 regular employees, the giant phone industry now has 3,000 workers.

Another was at Shoe Mart (SM) in the 1990’, where 92% of its workers became contractual. In 2000, San Miguel Corporation’s (SMC) 26,000 workforce reduced to 1,000 regular workers.

The latest of the hit was in December 2011, where Philippine Airlines’ (PAL) remaining 2,600 regular employees were fired. They were then re-hired as contractual workers by agencies allegedly owned by PAL president Lucio Tan.

Early last April, the Philippine Association of Local Service Contractors (PALSCO) warned that banning the contractualization would displace 1 million workers. They claimed that the government cannot just remove the industry of sub-contracting and outsourcing because it is the current trend of employment.

Now here’s the policy dilemma confronting PNoy as to his disapproval over worker’s plea during last week’s discussion with labor groups. Paying sincerest and highest respect to the hands that do, allow this writer to share to our workers some jurisprudence from the High Court with regards to security of tenure:

1) In the case of DE GUZMAN VS. COMELEC, G.R. No. 129118, July 19, 2000:

Constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. The guarantee of security of tenure under the Constitution means that an employee [2] cannot be dismissed from the service for causes other than those provided by law and only after due process is accorded the employee.

2) In the case of PHIL-SINGAPORE TRANSPORT SERVICES,INC. VS. NLRC, GR No 95449, August 18, 1997:

No less than the Constitution recognizes and guarantees the labor’s right to security of tenure. Under the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, specifically, Article 279 of the said Code, the security of tenure has been construed to mean as that “the employer [3] shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized” by the Code. The two facets of this legal provision are:

(a) the legality of the act of dismissal; and (b) the legality in the manner of dismissal. The illegality of the act of dismissal constitutes discharge without just cause, while illegality in the manner of dismissal is dismissal without due process. If an employee is dismissed without just cause, he is entitled to reinstatement with backwages up to the time of his actual reinstatement, if the contract of employment is not for a definite period; or to the payment of his salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of the employment contract, if the contract is for the definite period. If the dismissal is for a just cause but it was made without due process, the employee is entitled to the payment of an indemnity.

3) In the case of of Agoy vs. NRLC, 112096, 30 January 1996:

_Security of tenure of probationary employee. _It is settled that even if probationary employees do not enjoy permanent status, they are accorded the constitutional protection of security of tenure. This means they may only be terminated for just cause or when they otherwise fail to qualify as regular employees in accordance with reasonable standards
made known to them by the employer at the time of their engagement.