15 February 2007

Employers have perfected a new practice in attempting to bust unions. If warnings, threats, intimidation, harassment, transfers of union officers and activists, “carrots”, delaying tactics in hearings, etc. do not work, there is still that ‘legal means’ to thwart union formation . That’s the temporary restraining order (TRO).

On the very day of the scheduled certification election at Moriroku Philippines, Inc. ( MPI) on March 22, 2005, the Court of Appeals temporarily restrained the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) election officers from conducting the election, directing the union to file a comment on the issue.

The TRO effectively killed organizing in MPI. Restraining orders are difficult to overturn.

MPI is a Japanese supplier of plastic molds (for Honda and Toyota) at Laguna Technopark. It had 83 regular workers (of which 26 are women). After the union was registered on October 29, 2004 and the petition for certification election was filed on November 11, 2004, the management regularly conducted meetings by department outside the company premises --informing workers that only union organizers will benefit from union formation and threatening workers that the company will close if the union wins. A traditional annual salary increase was withdrawn to stress its point. However, employees were granted a salary increase averaging P13 per day per employee allegedly in exchange for ‘no union’.

DOLE ordered the conduct of the CE on January 28. The company petition to cancel the union registration and the petition against the PCE were dismissed by the DOLE for lack of merit.

Adding more pressure to the union, in March 2004, the lady union president disappeared. She has not been heard from since.

A representative from the Court of Appeals served the TRO. The union insisted that the CE should proceed and that the order of the Med-Arbiter, who has jurisdiction over the case, should prevail. But the DOLE bowed to judicial courtesy.

The union filed a motion for reconsideration for the conduct of CE before the Court of Appeals – amusingly termed by Court insiders “a never ending story”. In the end, the union opted to withdraw the motion to quash the TRO, and is preparing to register another union.

Anti-union actions continued -- the union treasurer, together with a six-month pregnant union director, was terminated from the company. Complaints were immediately filed with the NLRC, where the case has languished since. During an NLRC hearing on the illegal dismissal cases, a remorseful company personnel manager submitted an affidavit saying that he was hired by the company to bust the union, and that the termination of the union treasurer and the union director was illegal and was done because of their union work.

Prior to termination, the Union treasurer, Melanie (not her real name), was humiliated. She was made to clean the company yard, and made her segregate garbage. “I did my job well even though I was allowed only short break. Despite my work record, they dismissed me, allegedly for failing to meet the requirements of my position,” Melanie said. While some members were disheartened as Melanie, the remaining core group members are waiting for the right time to reorganize the union. … and for another TRO?

In boxing, one can win by TKO (technical knockout). In organizing, the employer can win by TRO (temporary restraining order).

BACK TO TOP