PAL cases are not labor disputes?

After the approval by the Office of the President of the spin-off of three non-core businesses by Philippine Airlines and the Court of Appeals’ upholding of PAL’s action, the controversy between the management and the union is no longer a labor dispute.

PAL started implementing the spin-off and separation of about 2,600 employees on October 1. The last day of the workers in PAL was on Sept. 30. After that day, the services of union members were deemed terminated.

Therefore, lawyers of PAL said, the strike called by about 300 members of PAL Employees Association (PALEA) is illegal. The union members lost the personality to strike by virtue of their separation from the service, whether or not they accepted the separation benefits totaling P2.7 billion.

As early as Aug. 22, Gerardo F. Rivera, president of PALEA, wrote management to say "we reiterate our position that despite the decision of the Secretary of Labor and the Office of the President (approving the spin-off and separation), PAL cannot prematurely implement its planned mass termination … PALEA will exhaust all remedies available to it, including seeking a judicial resolution of the case."

The union elevated the dispute to the Court of Appeals but did not file a petition for a temporary restraining order.

The letter resulted from "town hall" meetings PAL called regularly to inform the workers of the mechanics of the separation, particularly the computation of separation benefits which, incidentally, were bigger than what the law and the collective bargaining agreement stipulate.

The payment of benefits started on October 1. The national flag carrier continues to pay those who accepted their separation. As of early this week, an estimated 1,000 members of PALEA have been paid.

Lawyers of the airline now say that the strike called by around 300 union members after September 30 is illegal because the union members were no longer employees of PAL.

They were supposed to be absorbed by the three non-core companies. Whether or not they will accept new jobs in the other companies which PAL has contracted is the workers’ decision, the lawyers said.

That is the reason the lawyers filed a petition for a temporary restraining order seeking to prevent the supposedly separated members of PALEA from harassing the operation of the airline.

The strikers took over the in-flight center. The takeover forced the company to transfer the center to a warehouse.

Edwin B. Ramizo, executive judge of the regional trial courts in Pasay, granted a 72-hour TRO on October 18.

The TRO was valid only for three days because, the lawyers said, the executive judge had the duty to raffle the petition among other judges.

The case landed in the sala of Maria Rosario Ragasa of RTC Branch 108 in Pasay City.

The judge lifted the TRO and went further to issue an order to PAL and the union to maintain the status quo.

The sheriff who was in the premises of PAL where the strike was being held was called on the phone and informed about the status quo order.

PAL lawyers said the sheriff should not have obliged the call of the sala of Judge Ragasa pending receipt of the order.

The status quo is that the 300 union members who are deemed separated from the service are on strike and went as far as taking over the in-flight center.

PAL lawyers petitioned for the inhibition of Judge Ragasa from the case. She refused.

The case of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines is another matter.

A division of the Supreme Court decided with finality that the 2,400 members of the union must be reinstated.

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, however, ordered the recall of the ruling and decided that the en banc should make the final decision instead.

The members of the FASAP marched to the street in front of the Supreme Court questioning the recall of the ruling of the division. The en banc is scheduled to deliberate on the case on November 15.

Lawyers of PAL maintain that the members of the two unions – PALEA and FASAP – are both defying the law.

PALEA filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. PAL maintains that its members were separated on September 30 as there is no order so far stopping management from implementing the spin-off approved twice approved by President Aquino.

FASAP, on the other hand, could not wait for the final ruling of the en banc. Marching to the Supreme Court is questioning the integrity of the Highest Tribunal, PAL lawyers claim.