Workers Unite!
Anti-worker decisions of the Supreme Court

Basahin ang artikulong ito sa Pilipino

Recent Supreme Court decisions on labor cases have been outrightly anti-worker. They prop up the legal basis for suppressing the labor movement.

In these decisions, capitalists have been granted greater liberty to fire workers, bust unions and deny appropriate benefits. In the name of "non-interference", the court insisted that the state had no say on what were considered as purely business decisions taken by capitalists, whatever effect this would have on the rights and welfare of workers.

Legalizing the suspension of collective bargaining

According to the Supreme Court, there are occasions when unions� right to collective bargaining may be suspended. This declaration dismantles the right of unions to periodically negotiate for, or review, collective bargaining agreements (CBA).

On January 23, the Supreme Court decided in favor of the capitalist in the case of Philippine Airlines. The union had petitioned that the 10-year moratorium on CBAs be declared illegal. In the decision written by former labor secretary and now Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, the court declared that the moratorium on CBAs at the Philippine Airlines (PAL) was legal because it was supposedly stipulated in an exclusive agreement between the company and the Philippine Airlines Employees Union (PALEA).

Thus, for 10 years, PAL workers would not have the right to renegotiate their CBA or change their union (because it was PALEA that bargained with the company). The Supreme Court used PAL�s "financial problems" as a basis for approving the moratorium. On the other hand, it refused to recognize that PAL owner Lucio Tan coerced and bribed some PALEA leaders to agree to the CBA.

Arbitrary dismissal of workers approved

In two successive decisions made last year, the Supreme Court advocated and approved the practice of monopoly corporations of arbitrarily dismissing workers.

In the case of Dole Philippines, the Supreme Court reversed a previous decision by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC had ordered the reinstatement of 3,000 workers, ruling that their dismissal due to "cost cutting" was illegal. According to the Supreme Court decision, Dole�s dismissal of its workers was justified because the company had the right to undertake cost-cutting measures even if it was not in the red-�that is, they could do so whenever they felt like it or even without notice. It was sufficient for the company to say that it was cutting down on costs.

In the case of San Miguel Corporation, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the capitalists� right to fire regular employees due to the use of new machinery. It turns a blind eye to the reality that positions occupied by regular employees are constantly being declared redundant just so they could be filled by contractuals. Worse, the court has ruled that the company may declare a position redundant to dismiss "undesirable" workers or "worst performers". It was an advocacy of the rampant practice of pinning such brands on militant and feisty union leaders and members that capitalists would like to fire.

Boycott of overtime, work slowdowns and work stoppages illegalized

Even the rights of workers to protest and wage collective action to advance their welfare have been attacked by the Supreme Court. The court considers as illegal strikes, boycotts of overtime, work slowdowns and work stoppages as means of collective action. The court demands strike notices and strike votes even if such actions fall short of an actual strike. The court calls them "strikes in installment" and considers them direct acts of sabotage.

On December 19, 2001, the Supreme Court gave its blessings to the forced overtime imposed by Interphil Laboratories on its workers. It declared the workers� boycott of scheduled overtime work as illegal. The Supreme Court rationalized its ruling on a provision in the CBA between the union and the company that grants the company the right to schedule work hours, with the company reserving the right to amend them. At the same time, the Supreme Court permitted the dismissal of the union�s leaders because they had supposedly violated the CBA.

In an earlier case, the Supreme Court declared a work slowdown waged by San Miguel Corp. (SMC) workers as illegal because this was directly prohibited in the CBA. According to the court, even in the absence of any provision in the CBA or any other law, work stoppages or work slowdowns were illegal in essence because they implied that workers worked on their own volition and not according to the hours and direction set by the capitalist. Even as the case was being heard, the SMC had gone ahead in dismissing union leaders of Ilaw at Buklod ng mga Manggagawa. Instead of putting a stop to it, the Supreme Court even praised the SMC for its "generous" separation package for dismissed workers.

April 2002
English Edition

	Editorial: Workers, lead the struggle to thoroughly isolate the Macapagal-Arroyo regime!
	Workers Unite! 1902-1930: Distinguished history class and anti-imperialist struggle of the labor movement in the Philippines
	Workers Unite! DOLE Order 18-02: Advocating contractualization
	Workers Unite! Workers� oppression under contractualization
	Workers Unite! Contractualization at SM
	Workers Unite! Anti-worker decisions of the Supreme Court
	Workers Unite! Worsening unemployment
	Balikatan 02-2 starts
	Plunder by the Marcoses being consigned to oblivion
	Reports from Correspondents: Company punished, cops ambushed in Agusan del Norte
	Reports from Correspondents: Revolutionary movement in Northeastern Luzon hailing its victories
	Reports from Correspondents: Human rights violations worsening under the Macapagal-Arroyo regime
	Desperate attack by Israel on Palestine
	Israel�s unbridled terrorism in Palestine
	The whole world condemns renewed attacks by Israel on Palestine
	News