August 25, 2010
Ponente: Carpio-Morales, J.
FACTS
Armelo J. Lamayo was a machinist at Negros Metal Corp. In 2002, he was called out by William Uy, Sr., company manager, for being at the foundry grinding some tools. As a machinist, Lamayo was not supposed to be working at the foundry. Nonetheless, he said he was there because he was using the bigger grinding machine to finish his work faster.
Subsequently, Lamayo was charged with loitering and incurred a warning. He was suspended twice: the first for three days (for the warning), and the second for 10 days (for failing to sign the memorandum suspending him earlier).
After serving the second suspension, Lamayo reported for work, only to be told that he had been dismissed from the company.
Lamayo later filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the labor arbiter. In lieu of a position paper, the company filed a Manifestation contending that the complaint should be dismissed because the LA had no jurisdiction over it since, under their CBA, such matters must first be brought before the company's grievance machinery.
LA RULING: Lamayo was illegally terminated.
NLRC RULING: Set aside the LA's ruling. Remanded the case to the LA for disposition based on the company's grievance procedure.
CA RULING: Reversed NLRC ruling and reinstated LA ruling. Lamayo was illegally terminated.
The company was insisting that contrary to the CA's ruling, Lamayo's complaint should have first been heard at the company's grievance machinery as per the CBA before being filed at the LA. Hence, the instant petition.
RULING
Petition denied. CA ruling affirmed. Lamayo was illegally dismissed.
Whether the LA had jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal complaint filed by Lamayo. – YES.
Under Art. 217(2) of the LC, Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide termination disputes. On the other hand, under Article 261, a voluntary arbitrator has original and exclusive jurisdiction over grievances arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company policies.
As a general rule, termination disputes should be brought before a labor arbiter, EXCEPT when the parties, under Art. 262, unmistakably express that they agree to submit the same to voluntary arbitration.
In the present case, the CBA provision* on grievance machinery being invoked by the company does not expressly state that termination disputes are included in the ambit of what may be brought before the company's grievance machinery.
More importantly, Lamayo was no longer a member of the union as evidenced by his letter of resignation from the union a year before his termination. As such, he could not have bound himself to bring the matter of his suspension to grievance procedure or voluntary arbitration in light of the documented fact that he was no longer part of the employees union.
Whether Lamayo's complaint for illegal dismissal should first go through the company's grievance machinery. – NO.
Since Lamayo's dismissal did not proceed from the parties' interpretation of or implementation of the CBA, it is therefore not covered by the grievance machinery procedure.
The laws and rules governing illegal dismissal are not to be found in the parties, CBA but in the labor statutes. Additionally, the option to go through the grievance machinery cannot any longer be availed of by Lamayo on account of the fact that he was not a member of the union anymore.
Whether Lamayo was illegally terminated by the company. – YES.
Lamayo was not allowed to go back to work after serving two suspensions, without affording him the requisite notice and hearing. Too, his failure to seek reinstatement did not negate his claim for illegal dismissal, there being nothing wrong in opting for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.
DOCTRINE
As a general rule, termination disputes should be
brought before a labor arbiter, except when the parties unmistakably
express that they agree to submit the same to voluntary arbitration.
