128605-1993-Philippine_Airlines_Inc._v._National_Labor20180914-5466-q1l8v5.pdf

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 6 pages.

THIRD DIVISION [G.R. No. 85985. August 13, 1993.] PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL) PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL), petitioner , vs. vs. NATIONAL LABOR NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER ISABEL P. ORTIGUERRA, and RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR ARBITER ISABEL P. ORTIGUERRA, and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PALEA) PHILIPPINE AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PALEA), respondents . Solon Garcia for petitioner. Adolpho M. Guanzon for respondent PALEA. D E C I S I O N D E C I S I O N MELO MELO, J p : In the instant petition for certiorari, the Court is presented the issue of whether or not the formulation of a Code of Discipline among employees is a shared responsibility of the employer and the employees. On March 15, 1985, the Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) completely revised its 1966 Code of Discipline. The Code was circulated among the employees and was immediately implemented, and some employees were forthwith subjected to the disciplinary measures embodied therein. Thus, on August 20, 1985, the Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA) <led a complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for unfair labor practice (Case No. NCR-7-2051-85) with the following remarks: "ULP with arbitrary implementation of PAL 's Code of Discipline without notice and prior discussion with Union by Management" (Rollo, p. 41). In its position paper, PALEA contended that PAL, by its unilateral implementation of the Code, was guilty of unfair labor practice, speci<cally Paragraphs E and G of Article 249 and Article 253 of the Labor Code. PALEA alleged that copies of the Code had been circulated in limited numbers; that being penal in nature the Code must conform with the requirements of suEcient publication, and that the Code was arbitrary, oppressive, and prejudicial to the rights of the employees. It prayed that implementation of the Code be held in abeyance; that PAL should discuss the substance of the Code with PALEA; that employees dismissed under the Code be reinstated and their cases subjected to further hearing; and that PAL be declared guilty of unfair labor practice and be ordered to pay damages (pp. 7-14, Record.). PAL <led a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting its prerogative as an employer to prescribe rules and regulations regarding employees' conduct in carrying out their duties and functions, and alleging that by implementing the Code, it had not violated the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) or any provision of the Labor Code. Assailing the complaint as unsupported by evidence, PAL maintained that Article 253 of the Labor Code cited by PALEA referred to the requirements for negotiating a CBA which was inapplicable as indeed the current CBA had been negotiated. LibLex In its reply to PAL 's position paper, PALEA maintained that Article 249 (E) of the Labor Code was violated when PAL unilaterally implemented the Code, and cited CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
provisions of Articles IV and I of Chapter II of the Code as defective for, respectively,

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture