Railways v. Union De Maquinista

MAKASIAR, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari to review the order (Exh. G, pp. 183-198, rec.) and resolution (Exh. I, pp. 232-236, rec.), respectively dated March 30, 1970 and August 26, 1970 of respondent Court of Industrial Relations in CIR Case No. 50-IPA entitled "Union de Maquinistas y Motormen, et al. versus Philippine National Railways."

On September 12, 1964, the respondent unions, Union de Maquinistas, Fogoneros y Motormen, hereinafter referred to as the Maquinistas, and the Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Perokaril, hereinafter referred to as the Kapisanan, declared a strike because of the inequities in the salaries of the members of the respondent unions compared to that of the Mechanical Department Labor Union, another union of employees in the petitioner's establishment. In a decision dated September 21, 1964, respondent Court of Industrial Relations, finding that there were inequities in the wages of the workers, granted a staggered wage increase of 20% and 15% respectively to the members of the Maquinistas and Kapisanan for a period of four years until September, 1968. The respondent Court likewise commended the move of the general manager of the PNR to standardize the salaries of the employees and recommended the formation of a management-labor panel, where all the thirteen unions in the company will be properly represented, to study the matter of salary standardization of all employees of the company and establish the true foundation of standardized salaries for all, under the theory of equal pay for equal work.

However, on February 18, 1965, the management of the PNR extended the 20% salary increase to all the employees of the company, thereby reverting the situation to where it was before the 1964 strike. Respondent unions protested and petitioner PNR tried to placate the members. Hence, the following negotiations ensued: January 12, 1968 Col.

NICANOR T. JIMENEZ General Manager Philippine National Railways M a n i l a Sir: I understand that the present management is very much interested in solving the remaining inequities with regards to the salaries of employees in the Philippine National Railways. The undersigned President of the Union de Maquinistas, Fogoneros y Motormen, believes that the salaries of its members are behind as compared to other group of employees, especially the employees under the Mechanical Department Labor Union, after the Job Evaluation was granted to them by the previous administration. While it is also true that to compare the risk.

hazards, responsibility and human endurance is none comparable to other group of employees. We will therefore submit a scale salary standardization during our conference. In addition to the above demand, we are attaching our other demands as annex "A"

hereof. We are willing however that these demands be differed (sic) pending the consideration of the above died demands. In this connection, we propose that the Union officers and management panel must have an early conference to thresh out means and ways to solve this sad plight of the Engine crews as what had been granted to others.

Hoping that this request be given due course at the earliest possible time convenient to you. Very Respectfully, (Sgd.) JOSE S. CAPISTRANO President [Annex "A" p.

65, rec.] February 13, 1968 Mr. Jose Capistrano President, UMFAM Manila Sir: Your letter of January 12th seeking justice to resolve the alleged existing inequities in pay of the employees covered by the collective bargaining unit of the Union de Maquinistas, Fogoneros y Motormen was initially taken up in our Panel meeting this morning, but was at a loss to deliberate on it further due to the absence of your Union proposal on the matter. In view of the unresolved position with which the Management Panel could present in meeting your Union Panel on the matter, we request to temporarily postpone our scheduled negotiation for this week until after your Union submits its proposal and the Management Panel has the opportunity to study the same. Yours truly, Original signed by: PACIFICO M. CRUZ Vice Chairman [Annex "B", p.

66, rec.] February 14, 1968 Mr. Pacifica M. Cruz Vice Chairman Management Panel Philippine National Railways Sir: I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 13, 1968 requesting the proposal of the Union with regards to my letter January 12, 1968 seeking justice to resolve the existing inequities in pay of the employees who are members of the Union de Maquinistas, Fogoneros y Motormen. In compliance therewith the following are the proposal of the Union: Chief Engine Crew Dispatcher P600.00 a month Asst. Engine Crew Dispatcher 575.00 "

Engine Crew Dispatcher and Dist. Engine Crew Dispatcher 550.00 " Asst.

D. Eng. Crew Dispatcher 500.00 " 1st Class Maquinista 500.00 "

2nd Class Maquinista 480.00 " 3rd Class Maquinista 460.00 " 1st Class Fogoneros 420.00 "

2nd Class Fogoneros 400.00 " 3rd Class Fogoneros 380.00 " I want to make it clear that the Chief Engine Crew Dispatcher, Asst.

Engine Crew Dispatcher, Dist. Engine Crew Dispatcher and Asst. are not permanent because these are being or assign(ed) by means of election.

Yours truly, (Sgd.) JOSE S. CAPISTRANO President Union de Maquinistas, Fogoneros y Motormen" [Annex "C", p. 67, rec.] May 10, 1968 Mr. Jose S. Capistrano President, Union de Maquinistas, Fogoneros y Motormen 850 Arqueros St., Tondo M a n i l a Sir: This is in connection with the negotiation this morning regarding your Union's request for salary adjustments of Engine Crew personnel to correct the alleged inequities resulting from the extension of the grant of 20% staggered increase under case No. 50-IPA to all other employees of the Company, particularly employees company covered by the Mechanical Department Labor Union.

In counter proposal to your proposed salary rates the management panel submitted a salary plan which with a little modification was acceptable to your Union, to wit: 1st class Maquinistas . . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

P465.00 2nd class Maquinistas . . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

420.00 3rd class Maquinistas . . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

390.00 1st class Fogoneros . . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

345.00 2nd class Fogoneros . . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

325.00 3rd class Fogoneros . . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

310.00 I fully appreciate your position and believe in the justification for your request. I wish to let you know therefore that I have directed that the hereinabove salary rates be included in the final consolidation of the budget and plantilla of the Company for fiscal year 1968-1969. Please be further advised that should there be any changes as a result of the final review of the Company's budget proposal we will consult with you before such changes are made.

This advance information is furnished so that you can report to your members the progress of the negotiations. Very truly yours, (Sgd.) NICANOR T. JIMENEZ General Manager " [Annex "D", p.

68, rec.). From the above, it is clear that the general manager of petitioner PNR finally agreed to a standard salary scale for the members of the Maquinistas. These salaries represented a graduated increase in monthly salaries from P10.00 in the case of third class fogoneros to P27.00 in the case of first class maquinistas.

However, the inclusion of the above salary rates in the final consolidation of the budget and plantilla of the Company for the fiscal year 1968-1969 failed to materialize for the matter was deferred by the Company board of directors. On July 23, 1968, the Maquinistas filed a notice of strike (p. 35, rec.) against the petitioner for violation of the duty to bargain and to implement what has been bargained upon in good faith.

An urgent motion (pp. 36-41, rec.) dated July 24, 1968 was filed in court by petitioner praying that: "(a) This Honorable Court immediately call the parties to a hearing/conference for the purpose of settling their disputes in order that industrial peace may be maintained in respondent Company. "(b) Pending final settlement of said disputes, that this Court issue a writ of injunction enjoining the Union de Maquinistas, Fogoneros y Motormen, its officers, members or agents from striking against respondent Company, or if they have already done so, to immediately order them to return to work under the last terms and con. conditions existing prior thereto.

In a subsequent conference called by the respondent Court, the Maquinistas submitted to the court's jurisdiction, and stated that they were litigating on the merits of their case and foregoing the Planned strike (p. 5 of respondent Unions' Brief, p. 357, rec.).

On August 26, 1968, to placate the members of the other unions, petitioner PNR offered a company-wide salary standardization plan which was approved in principle by the PNR board of directors in 1965 (p. 83, rec.). The Kapisanan disagreed with this kind of plan because it was based on a P4.00 minimum wage which was obsolete since the minimum wage was already increased to P6.00 in April 1966 and was to be, increased further to P8.00.

Also on August 26, 1968, the PNR Supervisors Association filed a manifestation stating, among others, that it entered on August 11, 1967 with the Philippine National Railways into a Memorandum of Agreement, in which the parties agreed to a categorization and adjustment of salaries of supervisory Personnel; that the said memorandum agreement has not been fully implemented although fun implementation may be made in due time; that there is no standardization of salaries of supervisors in the Company but hoped and expected for one in due time; and that the 20% salary increases granted to supervisors when the decision of respondent CIR of September 21, 1964 was extended to them, be based on the agreed categorized or standardized salaries of supervisors (see allegation VI of petition, pp. 13-14, rec; p. 6 of petitioner's brief, p. 355, rec.; Exhibit "E", pp. 138-140; Annex "A"

of Exh. "E", pp. 141-150, rec.; and p. 6 of respondent Unions' Brief, p.

357, rec.). However, this manifestation was withdrawn because the PNR board of directors decided to implement the salary increases of the supervisors by approving the memorandum of its general manager dated May 20, 1969 and by issuing resolution No. 37 5 (pp. 252-253, rec.; allegation 5 of respondent Unions' Answer, pp. 284-285), to wit: "Res. No. 375 "WHEREAS, the General Manager submitted his memorandum dated May 20,1969, reading as follows: "This has reference to the case of the remaining 60% of the categorized salaries of the supervisors of the Company which they have withdrawn from the Court of Industrial Relations.

In connection therewith, I would like to recommend the following 1. That the remaining 60% shall be implemented as follows: Salary Difference Per Annum To be implemented P200.00 Full amount 201.00 to P400.00 P200.00 plus 60% of excess over P200.00 401.00 to 600.00 P320.00 Plus 50% of excess over P320.00 601.00 to 800.00 P460.00 plus 40% of excess over P460.00 801.00 to 1,000.00 P596.00 Plus 30% of excess over P596.00 1,001.00 P717.00 plus 20% of excess over P717.00 2.

That the remaining portion, after the Partial implementation of the 60% shall be incorporated in the Budget and Plantilla of the Company for fiscal year 1969-1970; 3. That the implementation of the Partial payment of the 60% categorized salaries shall be effective July 1, 1968 but payment starts April 1969; 4. That the arrears since July 1968 to March 1969 shall be paid in accordance with the Pattern that the remaining 5% of the 20% staggered salary increase shall be paid; and 5.

That the amount of P112,667.64 be appropriated for the partial implementation of the 60% categorized salary. It will be noted that the Original appropriation required for the full implementation of the re 60% amounts to PI 79,544.67 per annum. With the plan of partial implementation herein above described, the cash outlay required will be chopped down to P125,063.92.

"Noting that the list of officers and employees whose salaries were categorized includes some whose positions are non-supervisory, attention of the PNR Supervisors' Association was called upon. The association recognizes this observation and agrees to delete these positions from the list without prejudice to further study of the matter. Consequently, the amount required will Neither be reduced to P112,667.64."

"WHEREAS, after perusal of the above memorandum this Board expressed accedence on the proposals contained therein; NOW, THEREFORE - "RESOLVED, That the implementation of the remaining 60% of the categorized salaries of the Supervisors of the PNR as proposed above by the General Manager, be, and it hereby is, approved in toto. The MARMEDENA, a union of physicians, dentists and nurses, also withdrew their intervention in the case after petitioner PNR granted their salary increases by virtue of resolution No. 417 which approved the memorandum of the general manager dated May 29, 1969 (pp. 249-251, rec.), to wit. Re No. 417 Whereas, in a letter to the Management dated May 23, 1969, the President of the MARMEDENA, wrote the following: Sir: Pursuant to our Cooperative Bargaining Agreement the Part time physicians are entitled to the adjustment of their salaries.

However, they are not given adjustments in the adjustment of salaries recently made. As these physicians are members of the MARMEDENA, I would like to request that they should also be given the 5% increase which is given to other employees of the Company. As of this date they are receiving 15% increase based on their basic pay.

Hoping to hear from you. Yours truly, "Whereas, in view thereof the following memorandum dated May 29, 1969, was submitted by the General Manager, to wit: One of the cases in the Court of Industrial Relations under the Case No. 50-IPA involves the salary adjustments of higher category position within the bargaining unit of the MARMEDENA. This case was withdrawn from the Court for negotiations between MARMEDENA and the management.

The following were agreed upon. 1. That the following are the adjustments to be made: Positions Number Authorized Salary Proposed Salary Increase (P.A.).

Physicians: II. Resident Physician 1 P6,000.00 P6,600.00 P600.00 Resident Physician 6 6,003.00 6,600.00 3,592.00 Clinic Physician II (clinic physician with 10 or more years service) 7 6,000.00 6,600.00 4,200.00 III. Supv.

Clinic Physician 3 7,200.00 7,320.00 360.00 Sr. Resident Physician 1 6,900.00 7,320.00 420.00 Sr. Resident Physician 2 6,292.00 7,320.00 2,054.40 Chief of Section 1 7,107.00 7,320.00 213.00 IV. Medico Legal Officer 1 7,107.00 8,220.00 1,113.00 V. Chief of Clinics 1 8,735.40 9,360.00 624.60 Dentists II. Dentist II 2 5,400.00 5,760.00 720.00 III.

Supvg. Dentist I (Asst. Supvg.

Dentist) 1 5,400.00 6,240.00 840.00 IV. Supvg. Dentist II 1 6,262.10 6,960.00 697.90 Nurses II.

Sr. Nurse 4 4,200.00 4,500.00 1,200.00 Q.R. Nurse 4 4,200.00 4,500.00 1,200.00 III. Supvg. Nurse 5 4,200.00 4,860.00 3,300.00 Supvg.

Nurse 1 4,374.60 4,860.00 485.00 Sr. Q.R.

Nurse 1 4,200.00 4,860.00 660.00 Nurse Superintendent 1 4,492.80 4,860.00 367.00 IV. Q.R. Nurse Supervisor 1 4,993.60 6,340.00 344.40 V. Chief Nurse 1 5,740.80 6,000.00 259.00 Total Increase Per Annum . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

.