FOUR sacked collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiators filed a complaint last Sept. 4 before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) against the UST Faculty Union (USTFU) board, saying their removal from the panel was illegal.
Complainants Edilberto Gonzaga, Emerito Gonzales, Rebecca Adri and Michelle Desierto sought to nullify USTFU Board Resolutions 2020-001, 2020-002 and 2020-003 which entail their removal as panel members and their ratification by all union members through an online process.
“[We] were elected by the members of USTFU as BARGAINERS and therefore, only the members themselves can remove [us] and not the USTFU board,” the four told the Varsitarian in a statement.
The ratification of the three resolutions was previously tied up with the ratification of the 2016-2021 CBA, supposed to be held on Sept. 10 to 12.
The board removed the four ex-negotiators for allegedly violating confidentiality rules in CBA negotiations, when they released a statement in June calling for the immediate release of the faculty’s 70-percent share in tuition increases since 2016.
Following the complaint, USTFU President George Lim took out the three board resolutions from the ratification process and moved the CBA ratification dates to Sept. 14 to 16.
In the complaint dated Sept.4 , the former CBA negotiators argued that the new CBA was “invalid and ineffective” as the new negotiators were unauthorized to bargain since they did not go through the process of election as required by union rules.
“Consequently, the replacement-bargainers, appointed by the USTFU board, cannot possibly negotiate a valid CBA for purposes of an effective ratification […] because these replacement-bargainers are treated by law as ‘total strangers’ to the collective bargaining of USTFU which only the General Membership of the Union can put into operation,” the complaint read.
They pointed out that under Article 13, Section 1 of the USTFU Constitution and By-Laws (CBL), “Collective bargaining for and on behalf of the general membership shall be undertaken by the Board of Officers through a negotiating panel the members of which shall be duly elected by the general membership.”
“[O]nly those elected by the general membership are authorized to bargain and this is stated in the USTFU-CBL,” they said.
Lim, one of the union officers tagged in the complaint, released a statement lamenting the four ex-negotiators’ move, saying it could derail the CBA, which provides for salary hikes and other benefits.
“It saddens us that despite our best efforts to conclude this long-delayed 2016-21 UST-USTFU CBA so everyone may now enjoy its fruits, there are some who relentlessly continue to seek ways to further delay and derail its ratification, whatever their motives may be,” his Sept. 9 statement read.
Lim said the USTFU board was forced to postpone the adoption of the board resolutions concerning the replacement of the former panel members and the online vote for the new CBA.
“Unfortunately, because the former panel members decided to bring this to DOLE, the decision is not anymore ours to make […] the board is now constrained to hold in abeyance the scheduled adoption of Board Resolutions 2020-001, 2020-002, and 2020-03,” Lim added.
Lim clarified the online CBA ratification would proceed on Sept. 14 to 16.
On Aug. 27, Lim announced to union members that the new CBA was almost ready and would only focus on economic provisions, noting that majority of more than 700 faculty members agreed to exclude the “political issues” from the agreement.
