The Supreme Court partly granted a petition filed by the Concerned Organization of PASAR Progressive Employees for Reform (COPPER), ordering the Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining Corporation (PASAR) to pay covered employees their rest day pay for two days during the legal strike held from August 3 to 18, 2020. However, the Court denied the employees' claim for the Perfect Attendance Bonus, ruling that COPPER waived it through a settlement agreement.
The Case
COPPER is a labor organization that is the sole bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees of PASAR. The labor dispute between COPPER and PASAR originated from a failure of negotiations over their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for the years 2017 to 2022, which caused COPPER to stage a strike from August 3 to 18, 2020.
On August 19, 2020, COPPER and PASAR executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) settling their dispute. The MOA provided, among others, that all other claims and demands of the Union were considered settled, and that all issues raised in the negotiations and conciliation-mediation conferences that were not approved by PASAR were deemed withdrawn and waived by the Union.
When the covered employees received their pay slips for September 2020, they discovered that their rest day pay for two days during the strike was deducted from their salaries or wages. Federico E. Jerusalem, the Union President, invited PASAR's grievance panel to a meeting to demand the rest day pay for two days within the strike period, as well as the Perfect Attendance Bonus for the period November 1, 2019 to October 31, 2020. PASAR denied the claims, arguing the employees did not raise the issues to their immediate superior within five working days from their occurrence, so their grievance was considered waived.
COPPER sought the assistance of the NCMB, which conducted mediation meetings. When the parties still failed to agree, they submitted the issues for voluntary arbitration. The Voluntary Arbitrator dismissed COPPER's claims for both the two-day rest day pay and the Perfect Attendance Bonus. The Court of Appeals denied COPPER's Petition for Review and affirmed the Voluntary Arbitrator's Decision, holding that an employee's absence during a strike is not compensable.
The Issue
The Court framed the question as: Are the covered employees of PASAR entitled to rest day pay and Perfect Attendance Bonus despite their absence from work during the strike?
The Ruling
The Court declared the Petition partly meritorious. In its disposition, the Court held: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision, dated February 23, 2023, and the Resolution, dated September 14, 2023, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 14340 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION."
The Court ordered PASAR to pay the covered employees their rest day pay for two days within the period of the legal strike between August 3-18, 2020. The total amount due shall earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the Decision until full satisfaction. The case was remanded to the Voluntary Arbitrator of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, Regional Office VIII, Tacloban City, for computation of the total monetary award.
By the Numbers
- Strike period: August 3 to 18, 2020
- MOA executed: August 19, 2020
- Perfect Attendance Bonus period claimed: November 1, 2019 to October 31, 2020
- CBA years in dispute: 2017 to 2022
- Grievance deadline cited by PASAR: five working days
- Rest day pay awarded: two days
- Legal interest: 6% per annum from finality until full satisfaction
- Court of Appeals Decision: February 23, 2023; Resolution: September 14, 2023
- G.R. No. 270699
The Court's Reasoning
The Court cited the 1987 Constitution's mandate under Article XIII, Section 3, that the State shall afford full protection to labor, and stressed that jurisprudence interprets provisions of law in favor of labor. It noted that interpretation in favor of the employer must be measured against stricter standards, and found no compelling reason to disallow a liberal interpretation in favor of PASAR's employees.
On the Perfect Attendance Bonus, the Court reasoned that under the CBA, valid sick leaves and leaves with pay do not disqualify employees from the bonus, so there was even more reason to conclude that absences due to attendance in a legal strike—a constitutional right—should not disqualify them. The Court noted the strike arose from a bargaining deadlock over the 2017-2022 CBA, and there was no allegation or proof that it was illegal, making the strike legal.
However, the Court agreed with PASAR that COPPER waived the covered employees' right to the Perfect Attendance Bonus through the MOA. Citing Article 6 of the Civil Code, the Court explained that rights conferred in a contract such as a CBA may be validly waived. COPPER had proposed a provision that employees who joined the strike should not be considered absent and should remain entitled to all CBA benefits, but PASAR rejected it and it did not appear in the final MOA. Under the MOA's "Settlement and Withdrawal/Waiver of Disapproved Union Demands" provision, which COPPER signed, the Perfect Attendance Bonus was considered waived.
Source: Supreme Court Decision, G.R. No. 270699.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.