Case Digest: Cebu Institute of Technology v. Hon. Ople, G.R. No. L-58870, December 18, 1987
- Consolidation of six cases involving private schools, teachers, school personnel, parents, and government officials regarding the allocation of tuition fee increases under Presidential Decree No. 451 and the Education Act of 1982.
- SEC. 3. Limitations. — The increase in tuition or other school fees or other charges as well as the new fees or charges authorized under the next preceding section shall be subject to the following conditions;
- (a) That no increase in tuition or other school fees or charges shall be approved unless sixty (60%) per centum of the proceeds is allocated for increase in salaries or wages of the members of the faculty and all other employees of the school concerned, and the balance for institutional development, student assistance and extension services, and return to investments: Provided That in no case shall the return to investments exceed twelve (12%) per centum of the incremental proceeds;
- Biscocho Case:
- Labor dispute between Espiritu Santo Parochial School and Faculty Association led to a strike, followed by a return-to-work agreement and submission of the dispute to the Minister of Labor.
- Ministry issued an order outlining various directives, including wage computation, equal distribution of tuition fee increases, waiting for the resolution of a dismissal case, and executing a CBA with specified economic packages and negotiation fee deductions.
- The Union agreed to include specific provisions in the proposed CBA based on the Ministry's order, outlining the computation of tuition fee increases and deductions from managerial employees' backwages.
- Petitioners, employees of the school, filed a petition to prohibit the implementation of the Labor Minister's order and related agreements, claiming these affect their rights to the 60% incremental proceeds as per Presidential Decree No. 451.
- SC: Issued a temporary restraining order to halt the enforcement of the order and related agreements upon the petitioners' request.
The Court notes the fact that there are two classes of employees among the petitioners: (1) those who are members of the bargaining unit and (2) those who are not members of the bargaining unit. The first class may be further subdivided into two: those who are members of the collective bargaining agent and those who are not.
It is clear that the questioned Order of the respondent Minister applies only to members of the bargaining unit. The CBA prepared pursuant to said Order, however, covered employees who are not members of the bargaining unit, although said CBA had not yet been signed at the time this petition was filed on November 24, 1986. Assuming it was signed thereafter, the inclusion of employees outside the bargaining unit should be nullified as this does not conform to said order which directed private respondents to execute a CBA covering only members of the bargaining unit.
Being outside the coverage of respondent Minister's order, and thus, not entitled to the economic package involved therein, employees who are non- members of the bargaining unit should not be assessed negotiation fees, attorney's fees, agency fees and the like, for the simple reason that the resulting collective bargaining agreement does not apply to them. It should be clear, however, that while non-members of the bargaining unit are not entitled to the economic package provided by said order, they are, in lieu thereof, still entitled to their share in the 60% incremental proceeds of increases in tuition or other school fees or charges.
As far as assessment of fees against employees of the collective bargaining unit who are not members of the collective bargaining agent is concerned, Article 249 of the Labor Code, as amended by B.P. Blg. 70, provides the rule:
Art. 249. Unfair labor practices of employers.-
xxx xxx xxx
(e) ... Employees of an appropriate collective bargaining unit who are not members of the recognized collective bargaining agent may be assessed a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by members of the recognized collective bargaining agent, if such non- union members accept the benefits under the collective agreement . . .
Employees of the collective bargaining unit who are not members of the collective bargaining agent have to pay the foregoing fees if they accept the benefits under the collective bargaining agreement and if such fees are not unreasonable. Petitioners who are members of the bargaining unit failed to show that the equivalent of ten (10%) percent of their backwages sought to be deducted is unreasonable.
Comments
Post a Comment