Teh interesting (non-PHL-related) news stub thread

[maitreya]

http://newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option...d=88889051

SC says shaven heads in workplace illegal strike; labor groups cry foul

Reporting for work with a shaven head or even a cropped up hair could be dangerous to your job.

That is essentially the opinion of magistrates of the Supreme Court as it upheld the dismissal of 29 union officers of Dusit (Nikko) Hotel following a deadlock in the collective bargaining agreement.

In a motion to intervene and to reconsider the ruling, four labor groups from the public sector sought Monday a reversal of the Court’s Second Division, which they say expands the grounds for illegal strike and violates freedom of speech and right to engage in peaceful concerted activities.

Through lawyer Rosselynn de la Cruz, they want the Court en banc to review the case and reinstate the dismissed workers.

In a ruling promulgated last November, the Court’s Second Division found the union officers to have engaged in an illegal strike for picketing the hotel premises last Jan 2002. The picket was prompted by the hotel management’s suspension of some union members who reported for work with shaven heads and cropped hair.

At that time, management and union faced a deadlock in its CBA. To express their protest, some male workers reported for work with clean-shaven heads and new hairstyle, which the management said violated the hotel’s grooming standards. The management barred them from reporting for work.

In response to the management’s action, the union picketed the hotel which management said affected the operations of the hotel. Management charged the union officers and workers with illegal strike, illegal picket, and violation of the grooming standards.

The workers however countered that they were only expressing their grievance as a result of the management’s refusal to allow the workers to report for work.

Velasco's ruling
In its ruling penned by Justice Presbitero Velasco, the Court agreed with the management that the workers’ violation of the grooming standards “was clearly a deliberate and concerted action to undermine the authority of and embarrass the hotel, and was therefore not a protected action.”

The Court said that when the workers decided “to come to work bald-headed or with cropped hair, (it) suggests that something is amiss and insinuates a sense that something out of the ordinary is afoot. Obviously, the Hotel does not need to advertise its labor problems with its client.”

Since it forced the hotel not to allow the workers to report for work, the Court said “it is not an unprotected act and should be considered as an illegal strike.”

The Second division, which is chaired by Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, a former labor secretary, noted that the inappropriate hairstyle of the union members also reflects the union's absence of good faith in the negotiations. It also did not help that the workers did not observe the 30-day cooling off period and blocked the hotel’s entrances during the picket.

Out of leniency, the Court ordered the reinstatement of 61 union members but ruled for the dismissal of 29 union officers.

'Restricts freedom of speech'
In their motion for intervention, the Confederation of Independent Unions in the Public Sector, the Postal Employees Union of the Philippines, the Public Services Labor Independent Confederation and Union of Statistics Employees argued the ruling “constitute an unwarranted expansion of the right to strike” which may have “adverse consequences to those for whom the right to strike is denied.”

As employees of the government sector, the intervenors said they are prohibited from staging a strike or work stoppage. But this does not mean government workers could not initiate collective acts short of a strike to express their grievance, they said.

In ruling that reporting for work with shaven heads to express grievance constitutes illegal strike, the labor groups said the Court “unduly restricts freedom of speech and the right to engage in peaceful concerted activities” which are both constitutionally- guaranteed.

“The decision of the High Court on the G.R. No. 163942 has a damaging effect on public sector workers’ already limited right to collective action, by setting a precedent wherein employers can arbitrarily and subjectively decide when a collective action can be considered a strike, rather than upholding the Labor Code’s clear definition of a strike as “any temporary stoppage of work by the concerned action of employees as a result of an individual labor dispute,” the motion said.

It further argued: “If peaceful picketing is considered protected speech, then certainly, acts of a lesser degrees, such as shaving of heads, cannot be said to be prohibited without afoul of established doctrines.”

The intervenors pleaded the en banc to reverse the Second Division’s ruling, not only because it is constitutionally infirm but also to prevent management in the private and public sector from using it as a tool to quash opposition.

“The effect of the High Court’s decision would embolden management in the public sector to bust unions and discourage their formation for the flimsiest reasons. They would also inevitable result to public sector unions to afraid to stand up against poor governance and graft and corruption,” the motion said. (abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak)