FILE — Union members raise their hands to vote during the UST Faculty Union general assembly on Oct. 4, 2024.

NEGOTIATORS for the UST Faculty Union (USTFU) have called for a vote on Jan. 14 to declare a deadlock in talks for a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA), a contract for salaries and other terms and conditions of work that has been delayed for three years.

In a Dec. 14 letter to union members, USTFU President Emerito Gonzales said the union panel and the UST administration reached a deadlock on Nov. 22 following prolonged disagreements over two key economic benefits.

The declaration of deadlock for the 2021-2026 CBA must be ratified by union members through a yes-or-no vote during a general assembly set on Jan. 14.

“[T]he decision to deadlock or not, to ratify or not, this CBA rests in the vote of each union member, not the USTFU Board; not the USTFU CBA panel,” Gonzales wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Varsitarian.

“We, as representatives of each and every member of the union, believe that every voice must be heard in making this crucial decision,” he added.

A deadlock occurs when negotiations fail to resolve specific issues during CBA discussions. This can lead to several possible outcomes, including the filing of a notice of strike with the Department of Labor and Employment, mediation or arbitration, or resumption of talks to seek resolution.

By law, economic provisions should already go through renegotiation midway into the term of the CBA. The coverage of the delayed CBA will reach its penultimate year next year.

The move to declare a deadlock came after the UST administration panel continued rejecting two major economic proposals: hospitalization benefits and rank upgrades.

The union proposed a P25-million budget for hospitalization and medical benefits over five academic years, with caps of P150,000 and P300,000 for critical illnesses. The administration countered with only P3 million per year.

For rank upgrades, the union pitched a P26-million budget sourced from non-tuition collections. However, the administration panel insisted the amount be drawn from the faculty’s share in tuition hikes.

Gonzales said the declaration must be ratified before the USTFU panel meets with the UST management panel on Jan. 17.

Union divided?

In his letter, Gonzales addressed the apparent discord within the faculty union during this “crucial stage of the negotiations.”

He criticized “many officers and directors of the USTFU board” for allegedly monopolizing decisions and opposing efforts to update and consult members.

“These members of the USTFU board oppose the idea and would like to prevent the CBA panelists from providing updates and consultations with the club presidents and the union members,” Gonzales wrote.

He added that this was evident in the board’s last meeting, where several members supposedly sought to block plans for a Dec. 17 meeting with club presidents and the Jan. 14 general assembly.

Some faculty members interviewed by the Varsitarian said USTFU already has grounds to pursue a labor complaint for unfair labor practices over the administration’s apparent “surface bargaining,” where management only goes through the motions of negotiating and goes in breach of its duty to bargain in good faith.

The years-long delay in talks, they said, have in fact placed additional pressure on USTFU negotiators to reach an agreement with the administration.

In an earlier interview, Gonzales admitted that the USTFU panel conceded most of the CBA’s political provisions to focus on economic benefits, which were later largely turned down by the management panel  as well.

Under Article 248 of the Labor Code, a violation of the duty to bargain collectively is considered an unfair labor practice by employers.

Negotiations for the 2011-2016 CBA also reached a deadlock but was broken through backchannel talks in 2014. The following deal covering 2016-2021 was also delayed and only saw ratification in September 2020.

Some faculty members pointed out to the Varsitarian that the delays have historically presented a double whammy — inflation and tax.

With years of no salary increases, faculty members were unable to benefit from increased purchasing power. And when delayed CBAs were finally ratified, lump-sum adjustments were subjected to higher tax rates under higher income brackets.

Yet the University was able to sign new CBAs with hospital staff in June 2022 and support staff in May 2024.

LEAVE A REPLY

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.