GR 41314; (November, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 41314 November 13, 1992
Union Carbide Labor Union (NLU), petitioner, vs. Union Carbide Philippines, Inc. and the Hon. Secretary of Labor, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner union challenges the decision of the Secretary of Labor which set aside an Arbitrator’s order for reinstatement with backwages and instead awarded separation pay to three dismissed employees, Agapito Duro, Alfredo Torio, and Rustico Javillonar. The employees were dismissed after the Secretary of Labor approved an application for clearance to terminate them on December 19, 1972, based on alleged willful violation of company regulations, gross insubordination, and refusal to submit to a company investigation. The dismissals stemmed from the employees’ refusal to report for work on a new work schedule. The company had changed the night shift schedule from Monday-Friday to Sunday-Thursday. The three employees, objecting to this change which they believed violated the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), did not report for work on Sunday, November 26, 1972. This absence led to a 14-day suspension and, ultimately, their dismissal. The Arbitrator initially ordered their reinstatement with backwages, but the Secretary of Labor modified this decision on appeal, awarding only separation pay.
ISSUE
The main issue is whether the complainants could be validly dismissed from their employment on the ground of insubordination for refusing to comply with the new work schedule.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the petition lacked merit and affirmed the decision of the Secretary of Labor. The Court held that the company’s change in the work schedule was a valid exercise of its management prerogative. Section 2, Article II of the CBA expressly granted the company the sole and exclusive right to schedule hours of work, shifts, and work schedules. This prerogative is upheld as long as it is exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s interest and not to defeat employee rights. The Court found no unfair labor practice, gross neglect, serious misconduct, or willful disobedience in the employees’ act. However, the Court agreed that reinstatement was no longer feasible due to the passage of more than twenty years since the controversy began and the existence of strained relations between the parties. Consequently, the award of separation pay, rather than reinstatement with backwages, was affirmed.