OFFICERS of the UST College of Commerce and Business Administration Faculty Club have expressed support for the online ratification of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) on Sept. 14 to 16.
“We believe that our participation in the ratification process is the most democratic way to determine the true stance of UST Faculty Union (USTFU) membership,” the Commerce faculty officers said in a statement dated Sept. 12.
They also cited the efforts of USTFU board for finalizing the CBA, an agreement on the terms and conditions of work that provides for hikes in salaries and benefits.
“We appreciate the efforts made by the UST Faculty Union and Board members in finalizing the much-deserved benefits contained in the 2016-2021 CBA,” they said.
The UST Faculty Association of Senior High School (SHS), which has the largest number of non-tenured faculty, meanwhile opposed the online CBA ratification.
“Tumitindig ang pamunuan ng Faculty Association of Senior High School sa botong ‘NO’ para sa mga inihapag na board resolutions at ratipikasyon ng CBA 2016-2021,” it said in a statement.
The UST SHS Faculty cited as basis for opposing the online CBA ratification the removal of the elected panel of negotiators, and argued that ratifying a CBA produced by negotiators that were not elected by the general membership was illegal.
They also claimed the result of an USTFU survey, where the majority of more than 700 faculty members agreed to focus on economic provisions and exclude “political issues” from the agreement, did not mirror the sentiment of the faculty.
On Sept. 4, former CBA negotiators Edilberto Gonzaga, Emerito Gonzales, Rebecca Adri and Michelle Desierto filed a complaint before the Department of Labor and Employment against the USTFU board over their removal as panel members.
The four negotiators were sacked by the board for allegedly violating confidentiality rules in the CBA negotiation, when they released a letter in June calling on the University administration to immediately release the faculty’s share in tuition increases.
They argued however that the public request was not a confidential matter and that they were removed from the CBA negotiations without due process.
