Thursday, October 31, 1996

The PAL Dispute, The DOLE's Drift

The Manila Times
Thursday, October 31, 1996
Editorial

It is no secret that President Ramos is not too happy about being referee in the dispute between the union and management of Philippine Airlines, the national carrier. More than two years ago, the President was quoted as saying: "I resolved the corporate quarrel in the board and the ownership dispute, now I may end up mediating in the current internal dispute as if I'm the general manager." Having said this, the President then stepped in to end a 12-hour wildcat strike launched by members of the PAL Employees' Association, who had earlier defied a return-to-work order of the Department of Labor and Employment. The walkout forced the cancellation of 25 domestic and three international flights, and delayed several others nationwide.

The issue then was the union's demand for a three-year package of increased pay and benefits amounting to P1.6 billion.

This week, the unionized workers of PAL again threatened to go on a strike shortly before next month's Asia-Pacific Economic Conference, the country's coming-out party. They promised a "big" one, what with offers of support for the PAL union from the 14,500-strong union of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company and the 8,000-strong union of the Manila Electric Company. They also expressed a wish for President Ramos to enter the picture again—before the strike breaks out.

Yesterday at 6 p.m., the union proved that it means what it says when it threatens to mount a strike.

The dispute at PAL seems to be symptomatic of a bigger problem at the labor department.

Conciliation meetings between the management and union of PAL were still ongoing when Labor Secretary Leonardo Quisumbing issued his first assumption order last Oct. 18. To people familiar with how labor disputes are negotiated, the order smacks of a sense of betrayal. The move is similar to the recent demolition or squatter shanties in Paco, which was undertaken while representatives of the urban poor communities were still negotiating with the President in Malacañang, asking for a reprieve in the absence of relocation sites. The demolition was temporarily stopped by no less than the President. Not surprisingly, PAL unionized workers want the President to sit down with them again to discuss their problem with management.

For several months now, stories from the labor beat have been less than inspiring. More and more business establishments are reportedly violating the Labor Code and technical safety standards. Job site accidents are said to be on the rise. And let's not forget the return of overseas contract workers inside boxes, an almost common occurrence despite the lessons the government is supposed to have learned after Flor Contemplation. Worst of all, many management and labor parties locked in dispute are finding it more difficult to keep faith in the competence and integrity of the senior officials, mediators and arbiters of the DOLE.

What ails the labor department, Mr. Secretary?

The Palace is DOLE?

The labor unrest at PAL is something which should be adequately handled at the DOLE's level, but can we blame the workers for seeking the intercession of the President, who has his hands full with more pressing problems?

Malacañang itself has seen it fit to intervene, and speak for DOLE. Last Tuesday, it issued a press release announcing that DOLE has "shelved its order reinstating some 1,500 striking employees of Temic Telefunken Microelectronics (Phils.) Inc."

The PR stated that DOLE Acting Secretary Cresenciano B. Trajano said "his office has yet to finalize the mechanics of the full implementation of the writ of execution dated June 27, 1996, ordering the reinstatement of the employees." The firm had filed a motion to quash the writ, but this was denied by DOLE in a ruling on Oct. 17, "for lack of merit."

Twelve days later, the decision affirmed in at least two DOLE rulings was revoked by the acting DOLE Secretary, according to the Malacañang press release.

What ails the labor department, Mr. Secretary?

No comments:

Post a Comment