Photo from Unsplash | Maayan Nemanov
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
In LMG Chemicals Corporation v. Secretary of DOLE, G.R. No. 127422, April 17, 2001, the Court declared that it is well settled in our jurisprudence that the authority of the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to national interest includes and extends to all questions and controversies arising therefrom. The power is plenary and discretionary in nature to enable him to effectively and efficiently dispose of the primary dispute.
In Philippine labor law, the Assumption of Jurisdiction is exercised by the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). This authority allows the government to step into labor disputes that threaten industries indispensable to the national interest.
The legal foundation of this power is found in the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended.
The Right to Strike
Article 278(b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, provides:
“Workers shall have the right to engage in concerted activities for purposes of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection. The right of legitimate labor organizations to strike and picket and of employers to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be recognized and respected. However, no labor union may strike and no employer may declare a lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union disputes”
While protecting concerted activity, the law qualifies that protection as “consistent with the national interest,” which forms the statutory anchor of the Assumption of Jurisdiction power.
Basis of the Assumption of Jurisdiction Power
Article 278(g)(par.1) provides that when, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration.
This authority has been characterized by the Supreme Court as an exercise of police power. In San Fernando Coca-Cola Rank-and-file Union (SACORU) v. COCA-COLA Bottlers Philippines, Inc. (CCBPI), G.R. No. 200499, October 04, 2017, the Supreme Court held that:
“The powers given to the DOLE Secretary under Article 263 (g) is an exercise of police power with the aim of promoting public good.”
In the same case, the Supreme Court held that in fact, the scope of the powers is limited to an industry indispensable to the national interest as determined by the DOLE Secretary. Industries that are indispensable to the national interest are those essential industries such as the generation or distribution of energy, or those undertaken by banks, hospitals, and export-oriented industries. (SACORU v. CCBPI)
Plenary and Discretionary Nature
The breadth of this authority has been repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court. In LMG Chemicals Corporation v. Secretary of DOLE, G.R. No. 127422, April 17, 2001, the Court declared that it is well settled in our jurisprudence that the authority of the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to national interest includes and extends to all questions and controversies arising therefrom. The power is plenary and discretionary in nature to enable him to effectively and efficiently dispose of the primary dispute.
Similarly, in University of the Immaculate Conception v. Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. Nos. 178085 -178086, September 14, 2015, the Court ruled that the powers of the Secretary in “national interest” cases are not set by metes and bounds. Rather, the Secretary is given wide latitude to adopt appropriate means to finally resolve the labor dispute.
The Court further explained, that, in the Secretary’s exercise of such broad discretion, the prevailing rule is that we will not interfere or substitute the Secretary’s judgment with our own, unless grave abuse is cogently shown. (University of Immaculate Conception v. Secretary of Labor)
The Supreme Court also clarified that the primary objective of Article 263(g) is not merely to terminate labor disputes between private parties; rather, it is the promotion of the common good considering that a prolonged strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest can be inimical to the economy. (University of Immaculate Conception v. Secretary of Labor)
Effects of Assumption of Jurisdiction
Under Article 278(g)(par. 2) of the Labor Code, as amended, that such assumption or certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.
Further, under paragraph 3 of the same article, the Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he may issue to enforce the same.
In Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng Triumph International v. Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, G.R. Nos. 167401 & 167407, July 05, 2010, the Supreme Court held that under the Labor Secretary’s assumption of jurisdiction over the dispute or its certification to the National Labor Relations Commission for compulsory arbitration shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout and all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions before the strike or lockout.
Thus, the effects of the assumption of jurisdiction are the following:
- The enjoining of an impending strike or lockout or its lifting, and
- An order for the workers to return to work immediately and for the employer to readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout, or the return-to-work order. (SACORU v. CCBPI)
Special Protection for Hospitals and Medical Institutions
The law gives heightened protection for healthcare institutions, to wit:
“In line with the national concern for and the highest respect accorded to the right of patients to life and health, strikes and lockouts in hospitals, clinics and similar medical institutions shall, to every extent possible, be avoided, and all serious efforts, not only by labor and management but government as well, be exhausted to substantially minimize, if not prevent, their adverse effects on such life and health, through the exercise, however legitimate, by labor of its right to strike and by management to lockout.” (Article 278(g)(par. 4) of the Labor Code, as amended)
It further mandates:
“In labor disputes adversely affecting the continued operation of such hospitals, clinics or medical institutions, it shall be the duty of the striking union or locking-out employer to provide and maintain an effective skeletal workforce of medical and other health personnel, whose movement and services shall be unhampered and unrestricted, as are necessary to insure the proper and adequate protection of the life and health of its patients, most especially emergency cases, for the duration of the strike or lockout.” (Article 278(g)(par. 5) of the Labor Code, as amended)
And provides:
“In such cases, therefore, the Secretary of Labor and Employment may immediately assume, within twenty four (24) hours from knowledge of the occurrence of such a strike or lockout, jurisdiction over the same or certify it to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. For this purpose, the contending parties are strictly enjoined to comply with such orders, prohibitions and/or injunctions as are issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or the Commission, under pain of immediate disciplinary action, including dismissal or loss of employment status or payment by the locking-out employer of backwages, damages and other affirmative relief, even criminal prosecution against either or both of them.” (Article 278(g)(par. 6) of the Labor Code, as amended)
Nature of an Assumption Order
An assumption order is not a final adjudication of the dispute. In Far Eastern University-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation v. FEU-NRMF Employees Association, G.R. No. 168632, October 16, 2006, the Supreme Court held that an Order issued by the Secretary of Labor assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute is not a final judgment for it does not dispose of the labor dispute with finality.
Determination by the President
Article 278(g)(par. 7) of the Labor Code, as amended, states that the foregoing notwithstanding, the President of the Philippines shall not be precluded from determining the industries that, in his opinion, are indispensable to the national interest, and from intervening at any time and assuming jurisdiction over any such labor dispute in order to settle or terminate the same.
Related Articles:
- When can a legal strike turn into an illegal strike?
- WHO HAS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE LEGALITY OF A STRIKE OR LOCKOUT?
- ARE STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS IN HOSPITALS, CLINICS, AND SIMILAR MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS PROHIBITED?
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.
Leave a Reply