Voluntary arbitration and the elusive goal of speedy labor justice: Writing finis to legitimated injustice in labor cases

College

Ramon V. Del Rosario College of Business

Document Type

Dissertation

Publication Date

8-2000

Abstract

There is little to expect from the justice system in this jurisdiction, yet no less than the Constitution guarantees the right of all person to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial and quasi-judicial power bodies. The disparity between what the law says and how it is actually implemented is all the more pronounced in the case of labor disputes. Article 217 of the Labor Code, for instance, vests in the labor arbiter original and exclusive jurisdiction over termination disputes, while article 261 of the same Code grants the voluntary arbitrator original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation of implementation of a collective bargaining agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel politics. Textually, there does not seem to be any problem with regard to these respective areas of jurisdiction. However, when implemented to the letter, the two articles create confusion as to which officer has jurisdiction over a termination case premised on an alleged violation of company personnel policies. There is, in this particular case, an “overlapping” of jurisdictions that is irreconcilable. Although the Supreme Court had attempted to reconcile what is acknowledged to be conflicting provisions of the Labor Code. Its decision in the case of Vicente San Jose versus National Labor Relations Commission and Ocean Terminal Services, Inc. (G.R. no. 121227, 17 August 1998) had only disposed of the issue concerning the interpretation or implementation of a CBA. The question as to which between the labor arbiter and the voluntary arbitrator legally exercises jurisdiction over termination disputes premised on the enforcement of company personnel policies was not addressed at all.

But overlapping the aforementioned is only one of the problems that stifle the expeditious and efficient resolution of labor cases. The problem of judicial interpretation is yet another. While the Constitution promotes the preference of the use of voluntary modes in settling labor disputes, the Supreme Court does not seem to be like minded. In one case, the Court had given a strict application of the rule that the parties may agree to submit ay labor dispute to a voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators for resolution. It is said that the agreement should have expressly indicated that they were submitting a case to voluntary arbitration. This, notwithstanding the clear wording of the agreement to submit certain issues to “arbitration.” It is true that the law is written into every contract. And the parties appeared to be aware of this maxim, as the cases they had enumerated would have otherwise fallen under the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter, had they not executed the agreement. But this does not give the Court the right to second-guess the intent of the parties and interpret their agreement as it sees fit. Next, the Court declared that “rules and regulations governing disciplinary actions,” and not “company personnel policies” are the usual sources of grievances. Such a declaration would appear to be consistent with the present wording of the law. But the Court should have taken note of the clear intent of the legislature, at least in this respect, to broaden the scope of the voluntary arbitrator’s jurisdiction. And in another case, the Court, in characterizing voluntary arbitration as “quasi-judicial” in nature, stated that its decisions should be made appealable to the Court of Appeals, when, previously, such decisions were remediable only via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Thus, the Court had effectively placed decisions of the voluntary arbitrator within the same litigious judicial route that the law had sought to bypass in the beginning.

The proponent thus submits that a number of amendments to pertinent provisions of the Labor Code should be made, particularly those affecting the respective jurisdiction of the labor arbiter and the voluntary arbitrator. The proponent argues that the jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator should be increased to encompass termination disputes, among other, in keeping with the policy of ensuring speedy labor justice.

html

Disciplines

Labor and Employment Law

Keywords

Labor laws and legislation—Philippines; Labor disputes—Philippines; Arbitration, Industrial—Law and legislation—Philippines; Speedy trial—Philippines; Justice, Administration of—Philippines

Upload File

wf_no

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS