Estrada’s ‘intervention’ benefited Palea, PAL

This refers to Conrado de Quiros’ October 4 column titled “Right cause, wrong tack.”

True, it was during President Joseph Estrada’s time that a 10-year suspension of CBA negotiations, among other items, was forged between Philippine Airlines and the PAL Employees Association (Palea). The 10-year suspension idea originally came from Lucio Tan, but this was rejected by the union members even after the Palea board accepted it. The rejection of Tan’s offer contributed to the closure of PAL on Sept. 23, 1998.

Consequently, Palea wrote Erap (Estrada) seeking his intervention to break the impasse. This time, Palea proposed a 10-year moratorium on strikes and similar actions, and a waiver of some of the economic benefits in the existing CBA. This was rejected by PAL.

On Sept. 27, 1998, the Palea board again wrote Erap proposing the following terms and conditions, subject to ratification by the general membership:

1. For each PAL employee,  60,000 shares of stock with a par value of P5 from Tan’s shareholdings, with three seats in the PAL board and an additional seat from government shares as indicated by Erap.

2. As far as practicable adequate Palea representation in bodies that deal with matters

affecting terms and conditions of employment.

3. To enhance and strengthen labor-management relations, the revitalization of the Labor-Management Coordinating Council, with adequate representation from both PAL management and Palea.

4. To assure investors and creditors of industrial peace, subject to the ratification by the general membership, the suspension of the PAL-Palea CBA for a period of 10 years, provided the following safeguards are in place:

a. PAL would continue recognizing Palea as the duly certified bargaining agent of the       regular rank-and-file ground employees of the company.

b. The “union shop/maintenance of membership” provision under the PAL-Palea CBA      should be respected.

c. No salary deduction, with full medical benefits.

5. The grant the benefits under the July 26, 1998 Memorandum of Agreement between PAL and Palea, to those employees who may opt to retire or be separated from the company.

6. For retrenched Palea members who have not received separation benefits, priority in the hiring/rehiring.

7. In the absence of an applicable company rule or regulation, Labor Code provisions should apply.

PAL accepted the Palea proposal, and the necessary referendum was scheduled.

On Oct. 2, 1998, 5,324 Palea members cast their votes in a DOLE-supervised referendum—61 percent were in favor of accepting the PAL-Palea agreement, while 34 percent rejected it.

On Oct. 7, 1998, PAL resumed domestic operations.

It may be self-serving, but evidently from the above factual background, Erap’s “intervention,” which was sought by Palea, did not worsen the situation but paved the way to the resumption of PAL operations; thereby ensuring continued employment for PAL workers who were not affected by the retrenchment program at that time, and safeguarding the continued existence of Palea as the exclusive bargaining agent of the workers.

—BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, former labor secretary of President Joseph E. Estrada