Collective Bargaining Agreement Of Philippine Airlines

However, the respondent PALEA disputes the allegations of the PAL petitioner and states that “the benefits apply to all workers in the collective agreement unit, including those who are not part of the selected collective organization.” 27 In other words, “PAL workers are entitled to the same benefit as in the same collective agreement unit, and the right to this benefit is also greater than non-union members.” 28 The purported business practice of the PAL petitioner, namely not to extend the payment of the 13th month`s salary or the annual bonus to non-regular workers, argues that the non-payment of this benefit is considered to be a reduction in the privileges or benefits prohibited by Presidential Decree 851; this PAL petitioner misrepreses that the 13th month`s salary or the annual bonus is the same as the Christmas bonus if, in fact, it is totally different, since it is a benefit paid by the provisions of the CBA, while the first is prescribed by law, including Presidential Decree 851. This petition for verification of Certiorari, in accordance with Rule 45 of the Court`s regulations as amended, seeks to overturn the decision of April 30, 1991 and the court of appeal`s resolution2 in CA-G. R SP No. 50161 entitled “Philippine Airlines, Inc. /National Labor Commission Relations and Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA) from March 10, 2000. In the contested decision, the Court of Appeal rejected the petition of the petitioner Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), upholding the decision of January 28, 19983 and the resolution of January 23, 19983. The Commission overturned the 12 March 19905 decision of the NRC Labour Arbitrator 00-03-01134-89-89, which dismissed and dismissed the complaint filed by the Philippine Airlines Association (PALEA). , the representative of the rank officers and the FILE of the PAL petitioner.

PHILIPPINE Airlines (PAL) and its PAL Employees Association (PALEA) working group have entered into a five-year collective agreement (CBA) that provides for “improved employment conditions” for their members. On April 16, 2010, PAL informed the union of the closure of airport services, catering and call centre services and the termination of approximately 2,600 employees by May 31, 2010. Jobs should be outsourced to contracted companies that could lag off laid-off workers. PALEA members then launched massive protests. Faced with a united workforce, PAL management took the highly unusual step of pressuring the Philippine Ministry of Labour to use its powers to prevent workers from taking collective action by “assuming” responsibility for the labour dispute and by committing the union to submit to mandatory conciliation. In this case, the provision for the payment of the Christmas bonus, with the exception of the 13th month`s salary, was included unconditionally in the 1986-89 CBA between palea and the PAL petitioner.