CMNT_TITLE

Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151) - Philippines (RATIFICATION: 2017)

Article 1 of the Convention. Scope of application. While noting Executive Order No. 180 of 1987 (EO 180) (right of all Government employees to form, join or assist employees’ organizations of their own choosing), and article IX(B) section 2(6) of the Constitution and Supreme Court judgements (right of temporary employees to self-organization and protection against arbitrary dismissals), the Committee had observed that there is no domestic law, rule, or policy pertaining to the right to organize of temporary public employees. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that House Bills Nos. 2621 and 2846, noted in the Committee’s previous comment, were not enacted into law. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged, including legislative measures, so that temporary public employees, in line with the provisions set out in the Constitution, enjoy the rights and guarantees of the Convention.

The Committee had observed that under EO 180 and the Amended Rules and Regulations Governing the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees to Organize, 2004 (Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of EO 180), several other categories of workers, whose functions do not justify their exclusion from the application of the Convention, were subject to limitations: firefighters and prison and other personnel who, by the nature of their functions, are authorized to carry firearms, are also excluded from this right (except when there is express written approval from the management). The Committee notes with interest that the Public Sector Labor-Management Council (PSLMC) Resolution No. 4, s. 2021 (October 2021) clarifies section 15 of the EO 180, and provides that: (i) the exclusion from this right to members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and Philippine National Police (PNP) is not applicable to the civilian and non-uniformed employee’s association in the AFP and PNP; and (ii)these employees are accorded the right to organize and shall, upon accreditation, collectively negotiate terms and conditions of employment that are not fixed by law. The Committee observes, however, that the Government does not provide information regarding the right to organize and bargain collectively of other categories of workers, such as firefighters and prison guards, and that in previous comments on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee had noted the Government’s indication that these categories of workers may exercise the right to freedom of association but not to the extent of forming, joining or assisting labour organizations for purposes of collective bargaining.The Committeetherefore refers to its comments regarding the application of Article 2 of Convention No. 87 and Article 4 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

Registration requirements for trade unions in the public sector. Legislative issues. In its previous comments under Convention No. 87, the Committee had requested the Government to inform of the progress made in amending the IRR of EO 180 with regard to the registration requirement for trade unions in the public sector. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that from 2017 to 2019 the number of newly registered public sector unions increased (100 in 2017 to 133 in 2019), and that, while the increase was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, it expects to continue increasing. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that: (i) House Bills No. 550 and 1513, both titled an “Act Strengthening the Constitutional Rights of Government Employees to Self-Organization, Collective Bargaining and Negotiation and Peaceful Concerted Activities and Use of Voluntary Modes of Dispute Settlement” were filed before the House of Representatives on 30 June and 7 July 2022, respectively; (ii) Bill No. 587, with the same title as the House Bills, was filed before the Senate on 14 July 2022; and (iii) these Bills seek to operationalize the Convention and will be discussed by the Congress (which formally opened sessions on 25 July 2022). The Committee observes that the Government does not provide details about the current or foreseen impact of these proposals (and others mentioned in past years by the Government such as the review of the Amended IRR) on the registration threshold for public servants’ organizations (a 10 per cent signature support requirement, which has been considered overly stringent by the Center for United and Progressive Workers (SENTRO)). In light of the above, the Committee, requests once again the Government to provide further updates on the progress made in the legislative reform concerning the right to organize of public sector employees and to indicate any impact of these reforms on the threshold for registration of public employees’ organizations.

Article 6. Facilities to be afforded to public employees’ organizations. The Committee had requested the Government to indicate in more detail the nature of facilities that are afforded to the representatives of recognized public workers’ organizations to enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) a survey conducted in 2018 showed that 540 out of 1,073 Collective National Agreements (CNAs) include agency fees (75 per cent) and union time-off (64 per cent); (ii) the PSLMC passed Resolution No. 2, s. 2022 providing for the Guidelines on the Use of Time-Off by Public Sector Employees’ Organizations (Annex C), ensuring that members are guaranteed their right to attend activities of their organization without loss of pay; (iii) most unions with signed CNAs are able to negotiate for union office and support facilities; and (iv) unions are also represented in procurement committees and promotion and selection boards, subject to applicable regulations. The Committee observes that the Government does not indicate whether the CNAs mentioned in the referred survey and the other information provided regarding facilities apply to the public sector only or gather information from both the public and private sectors. Regarding the above mentioned Bills (Nos. 550 and 1513) to implement the Convention, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the Bills were filed by representatives of labour and consultations have only been held with the labour sector; and (ii) the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (NTIPC) may be used as a venue for further consultation. The Committee observes that the Government does not provide further information on the content of these Bills with respect to the facilities afforded to the representatives of recognized public workers’ organizations. The Committee recalls that the most important facilities are the granting of time off for workers’ representatives without loss of pay or benefits, the collection of trade union dues, access to the workplace and prompt access to management. The Committee further recalls that it is desirable for consultations to be held prior to the adoption of legislation on facilities so that the measures adopted are sustainable and not contingent on successive changes of government or administration. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on all the facilities that are envisaged in the above legislation and that have been agreed in public sector CNAs to representatives of public employees’ organizations to enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently (including, granting of time off for workers’ representatives without loss of pay or benefits, the collection of trade union dues, prompt access to the management and the workplace and availability of premises). The Committee trusts that such legislation will address this issue, following consultations with the representative organizations concerned, and requests the Government to provide a copy of the legislation once adopted.

Article 7. Participation of organizations of public employees in the determination of terms and conditions of employment of their members. The Committee had noted that the requirement of the absolute majority in a bargaining unit to obtain the status of sole and exclusive collective negotiating agent may give rise to problems every time that no union secures the absolute majority support, thus preventing collective bargaining (sections 9–12 of EO 180, Rule I, section 1(a) of IRR on EO 180)). The Committee requested the Government to indicate whether in case no union in a specific bargaining unit meets the majority requirement, the existing unions are able to negotiate, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to this request, indicating that only unions with status of sole and exclusive negotiating agent can conclude a CNA with their employer. The Committee observes that the referred majority requirement can significantly limit the access of public employees to collective bargaining. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate how the right of public employees to participate through their organizations in the determination of their terms and conditions of employment set by article 7 of the Convention is applied in the public services where no organization reaches the referred threshold.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government regarding the number of accredited employees’ organizations as of June 2022 (1,299) and that 753 concluded and registered a CNA with the Civil Service Commission. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the number of organizations of public workers that have obtained the status of exclusive negotiating agent has increased from 148 in 2019 to 180 in 2020 and 275 in 2021. Observing that only public employee’s organizations with the status of exclusive negotiating agents can conclude a CNA, the Committee requests the Government to provide information clarifying the updated number of CNAs concluded in the public sector.

The Committee had noted that according to the legislation, terms and conditions of employment not fixed by law may be the subject of negotiation (increases in salary, allowances, travel expenses, and other benefits that are specifically provided by law cannot be negotiated). The Committee had noted the Government’s information on the existence of different mechanisms – the PSLMC, the NTIPC, the Regional Tripartite Industrial Peace Councils (RTIPCs) and the Industry Tripartite Councils (ITCs), which, according to the Government, ensure that the interests of workers in Government services are fully represented in the decision and policy-making processes. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no new mechanisms have been put in place so that public sector employees’ organizations can negotiate or participate in the determination of terms and conditions of their employment. The Committee observes that the Government does not provide information on: (i) how the existing mechanisms allow public servant organizations to negotiate or participate in the determination of terms and conditions of their employment, in line with Article 7 of the Convention, without limitation of subjects; and (ii) the status of the public sector labour relations road map consistent with the principles of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the existing mechanisms allow public servant organizations to negotiate or participate in the determination of terms and conditions of their employment, in line with Article 7 of the Convention, without limitation of subjects (including salary, allowances and travel expenses). Recalling its comments on the application of Article 4 of Convention No. 98 with respect to the public servants not engaged in the administration of the State, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress related to the development of a labour relations framework aligned with Convention No. 151.

Article 8. Settlement of disputes. The Committee had noted that the PSLMC, due to its composition of only Government representatives, does not appear to constitute an independent and impartial means of solving disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment, as provided for in Article 8 of the Convention. The Committee notes, that the Government reiterates that the Civil Service Commission may conciliate or mediate a dispute before is sent to the PSLMC for resolution. The Committee notes, once again, that the Government does not provide information regarding the possibility for representatives of public servants’ organizations to vote in the discussions and deliberations of the PSLMC. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there is no other independent and impartial means of solving disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment, as provided for in Article 8 of the Convention. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that negotiating parties can submit proposals to the Congress and other authorities to improve the terms and conditions of their employment. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that independent and impartial machinery is established so that disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment in the public service can be referred to such mechanisms, which should benefit from the confidence of the parties. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

Tribunal decisions. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government regarding five court decisions issued by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, between 1991 and 2021, relating to the application of the Convention, including one related to the power of the Department of Budget and Management to issue rules in relation to compensation as a result of collective negotiations between government employees’ organizations and their employers (Dreneu vs. Abad, G.F. No. 204152). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the implications of this decision, regarding terms and condition of employment of public employees, and to continue to provide information on court decisions relating to questions of principle regarding the application of the Convention.

The Committee noted information supplied by the following States in an answer to a direct request: Russian Federation, Slovakia.