FACTS
To enable it to catch up with the increasing competition for the sale of ad space in various media units, GTE Directories Corp., a foreign corporation in the business of publishing PLDT telephone directories, drew up a new policy for its sales representatives.
- Old policy: Sales representatives were given work assignments within specific territories by the so-called "draw method."
- New policy: Cancelled accounts, or accounts that cannot be renewed within a specific period, can be referred for handling to outside agencies or contractual salespersons.
Despite the union's opposition, the company issued six memoranda ordering sales representatives to hand in their sales reports. No one complied. Consequently, the company terminated 14 of its sales representatives, including the union president. The union held a strike to protest the management's decision.
When conciliation efforts failed, then Acting Labor Minister Vicente Leogardo, Jr. assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, holding that since the company was a major tax contributor (it paid a total of P10M in income tax alone), the ongoing dispute adversely affected national interest.
Labor Minister Blas Ople: Unless shown to be grossly oppressive or contrary to law, company policies are generally binding and valid on the parties and must be complied with until finally revised or amended unilaterally or preferably, through negotiations or by competent authorities.
Labor Minister Augusto Sanchez (succeeded Ople and adjudicated the dispute on the merits): Parties are ordered to negotiate and effect a voluntary settlement on the questioned dispute. In the meantime, the company is ordered to reinstate the 14 terminated employees.
Hence, the instant petition.
RULING
Petition granted. Order of Labor Minister Sanchez nullified and set aside.
Whether the Labor Minister properly assumed jurisdiction over the subject labor dispute. – NO.
The Minister of Labor erred when he assumed jurisdiction over the subject labor dispute, principally because the subject controversy does not adversely affect the national interest.
The production and publication of telephone directories, which is the principal activity of GTE, can scarcely be described as an industry affecting the national interest. GTE is a publishing firm chiefly dependent on the marketing and sale of advertising space for its not inconsiderable revenues. Its services, while of value, cannot be deemed to be in the same category of such essential activities as "the generation or distribution of energy" or those undertaken by "banks, hospitals, and export-oriented industries."
The small number of employees involved in the dispute, the employer's payment of "P10 million in income tax alone to the Philippine government," and the fact that the "top officers of the union were dismissed during the conciliation process," obviously do not suffice to make the dispute in the case at bar one "adversely affecting the national interest."
Whether the company can continue to impose its new policy despite opposition by the union. – YES.
Whether the employees can refuse valid company orders on the ground that they find the said policies unreasonable. – NO.
There is no proof on record to demonstrate any underhanded motive on the part of GTE in formulating and imposing the sales policies in question, or requiring the submission of reports in line therewith.
Given the validity of the new policy, it would be dangerous doctrine indeed to allow employees to refuse to comply with rules and regulations, policies and procedures laid down by their employer by the simple expedient of formally challenging their reasonableness or the motives which inspired them, or filing a strike notice with the Department of Labor and Employment, or, what amounts to the same thing, to give the employees the power to suspend compliance with company rules or policies by requesting that they be first subject of collective bargaining, It would be well nigh impossible under these circumstances for any employer to maintain discipline in its establishment. This is intolerable.
To sanction disregard or disobedience by employees of a rule or order laid down by management, on the pleaded theory that the rule or order is unreasonable, illegal, or otherwise irregular for one reason or another, would be disastrous to the discipline and order that it is in the interest of both the employer and his employees to preserve and maintain in the working establishment and without which no meaningful operation and progress is possible.
When employees and laborers violate the rules of discipline they jeopardize not only the interest of the employer but also their own. In violating the rules of discipline they aim at killing the hen that lays the golden eggs. Laborers who trample down the rules set for an efficient service are, in effect, parties to a conspiracy, not only against capital but also against labor. The high interest of society and of the individuals demand that we should require everybody to do his duty. That demand is addressed not only to employer but also to employees.
Whether the company committed ULP in terminating 14 of its sales representatives, including the union president. – NO.
When the strike notice was filed by the union, the chain of events which culminated in the termination of the 14 sales persons' employment was already taking place, the series of defiant refusals by said sales representatives to comply with GTE's requirement to submit individual reports was already in progress.
It does not follow that just because the employees or their union are unable to realize or appreciate the desirability of their employers' policies or rules, the latter were laid down to oppress the former and subvert legitimate union activities. Indeed, the overt, direct, deliberate and continued defiance and disregard by the employees of the authority of their employer left the latter with no alternative except to impose sanctions. The sanction of suspension having proved futile, termination of employment was the only option left to the employer.