THE UST Faculty Union (USTFU) has scheduled a strike vote for May 15, as negotiations with the UST management under the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) reached their end without a final agreement.
A total of 1,343 faculty members are expected to choose on Thursday between two options: “yes” if they decline UST’s “final offer” and want to proceed with a strike, and “no” if they want to accept the administration’s proposal.
But USTFU President Emerito Gonzales clarified in a May 10 meeting that there would be no work stoppage even if the “yes” vote won, as this would be prohibited under a situation of an assumption of jurisdiction by the secretary of labor. A total of 673 votes are needed to reach a majority vote.
A key implication of the labor chief assuming jurisdiction is that any strike or lockout will be prohibited.
RELATED: Talks for assumption of jurisdiction in UST dispute ‘too early,’ says top gov’t mediator
“This vote is not an act of hostility — it is an assertion of dignity, legality, and fairness. We urge our colleagues to support the strike vote and show that we will not be bullied into surrendering what is rightfully ours,” the union said in a statement on Saturday.
Union officials said they presented an “improved” offer to UST management on May 6, the penultimate conference with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), in a “sincere effort to meet halfway” with UST.
However, USTFU said that UST management refused to budge and reasserted instead its existing offers.
“The USTFU Panel has exhausted all avenues for principled negotiation. We submitted a fair, financially reasonable, and forward-looking offer. Unfortunately, UST Management remains unwilling to meet us in the middle,” USTFU said.
“Therefore, we have no choice but to proceed with a strike vote, scheduled for May 15.”
UST sought Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) intervention on March 26, immediately after the union filed a strike notice with NCMB.
However, the labor department has yet to say whether it plans to assume jurisdiction over the industrial dispute.
Final offer
Union and management negotiators have yet to agree on three major economic benefits: the rank upgrade fund, the hospitalization benefit, and the timeframe for releasing the faculty’s mandatory 70% share of tuition increases.
USTFU wanted to split the rank upgrade budget source evenly from tuition hike and non-tuition hike collections, but management countered with a scheme that charges the current amount to Academic Year 2023-2024 collections and the succeeding funds to other sources.
The union insists that the rank upgrade scheme is a promotion that UST should finance on its own and not be sourced from the faculty’s mandatory 70% share of tuition hikes.
For hospitalization, the union is seeking full coverage exclusive to UST Hospital, with the option to revert to a P150,000 base benefit and P300,000 critical illness allocation if the disbursements reach P21 million.
UST management offered to increase the base benefit to P150,000 from P100,000 and the critical illness fund to P350,000 from P300,000. Additionally, it offered a P7-million one-time replenishment to the union’s hospitalization fund.
Still contested is the release of the faculty’s share of tuition hikes from AYs 2021-2022, 2022-2023, and 2023-2024. USTFU demanded its immediate distribution, but management insisted on releasing it only after the CBA is ratified.
USTFU denounced UST’s withholding of the amount, which it said was a move “nothing short of economic coercion,” as the tuition hike shares “must not be used as bargaining chips.”
In a statement on May 10, UST said the Commission of Higher Education (CHEd) found no misuse of tuition hike proceeds in the University. However, the commission deferred to DOLE in determining whether the timing of its distribution violated the law.
“Given these developments, CHEd acknowledged that the dispute had become a labor standards issue appropriately falling under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor and Employment,” UST said.
“As such, CHED recognized that it was premature to determine whether there had been any violation of the law or the CMO on the part of the University in connection with the timing of the TFI’s distribution.” Micah G. Pascua
