Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 376, October 2015

Case No 3037 (Philippines) - Complaint date: 17-JUN-13 - Closed

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 132. The Committee examined this case at its March 2014 meeting [see 371st Report, paras 766–813] when it requested the Government and the complainant to keep it informed as to the manner in which the Court of Appeals’ decision of 7 October 2013 regarding the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) leadership dispute has been, and is being, applied. The Committee also requested the Government to keep it informed of the judicial developments in relation to the motions for reconsideration filed by the parties and expressed the firm expectation that the judicial proceedings will result in the final resolution of the abovementioned dispute in the very near future.
2. 133. In communications dated 26 May 2014 and 12 February 2015, the Government provided follow-up information. The Government indicates that, on 16 June 2014, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for partial reconsideration filed by Mr Umali, Mr Perez and Mr Diwa, claiming recognition as General Secretary and members of the General Council. The Court also amended its 7 October 2013 decision, annulling and setting aside the Bureau of Labour Relations’ (BLR) 10 August 2010 order, as well as the 28 May 2013 and 5 July 2013 resolutions of the Secretary of Labor and Employment; affirming the declaration of invalidity of the elections of Mr Victorino Balais and Mr Jose Umali as the General Secretary, the invalidity of the 16 March 2012 Convention and the expulsion of Alyansa ng mga Manggagawa at Pilipino Organisado (AMAPO) and the Philippine Federation of Labor (PFL) from TUCP; declaring Mr Herrera and the other elective members of the Executive Board at the time of Mr Mendoza’s resignation as the lawful officers of the TUCP in a hold-over capacity until their successors are duly elected and qualified; directing the members of the TUCP General Council to convene to elect a General Secretary who shall also serve in a hold-over capacity; directing the BLR to determine the members of the TUCP and Mr Herrera to submit the updated list of member unions to the BLR; ordering the TUCP General Council to call a Special Convention to elect the federation’s new set of officers and affirming that President Herrera and the other petitioners shall have full access to TUCP offices.
3. 134. The Government further indicates that a petition for certiorari was filed before the Supreme Court against the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court dismissed that petition on 27 August 2014. On 2 December 2014, Mr Mendoza filed a motion for reconsideration, requesting that the case be referred to the Court en banc en consulta. The Government indicates in its communication that this motion is pending before the Court.
4. 135. The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government. The Committee observes that the Court of Appeals has annulled certain decisions of the administrative authorities with regard to the conflict within the TUCP while upholding others, and has instructed the BLR and the trade union about the measures that must be taken on the disputed matters. The Committee further notes that a certiorari petition and a motion for reconsideration of the abovementioned decision of the Court of Appeals were rejected by the Supreme Court. The Committee understands that this resolution of the Supreme Court marks the end of the judicial proceedings in this case and that the terms of the final and definitive judicial settlement of the leadership dispute within the TUCP are embodied in the 16 June 2014 ruling of the Court of Appeals. The Committee recalls that, while it has no competence to make recommendations on internal disputes in trade unions, it has consistently pointed out that judicial settlement is one of the appropriate means of resolving such disputes. In particular, the Committee has pointed out that judicial intervention would permit a clarification of the situation from the legal point of view for the purpose of settling questions concerning the management and representation of the trade union federation concerned [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, para. 1124]. The Committee welcomes the final and definitive judicial resolution of the TUCP leadership dispute and considers that the case calls for no further examination.