Doctrine of shared responsibility


The Constitution requires that the State promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes of settling disputes, including conciliation and to enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace. These mandates have been partially complied with by the Philippine government through the issuance of labor laws and pieces of social legislation that ensure the rights of workers and the maintenance of harmony in employer-employee relations.

Azucena (2013) emphasizes that no one sector is to be unjustly favored.

In fine, it must be emphasized that in the resolution of labor cases, this Court has always been guided by the State policy enshrined in the Constitution that the rights of workers and the promotion of their welfare shall be protected. However, consistent with such policy, the court cannot favor one party, be it labor or management, in arriving at a just solution to a controversy if the party concerned has no valid support to its claim, like respondents [supervisors and foremen] here. (P.I. Manufacturing, Inc. vs. P.I. Manufacturing Supervisors and Foremen Association and the National Labor Union, G.R. No. 167217, February 4, 2008)

The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.

It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.

The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.

The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and growth. (Section 3 of Article XIII)
The discussion above is based on an outline by Azucena (2013). His books are available in fine bookstores nationwide. SOURCE: Azucena, C. A. (2013). The Labor Code: with Comments and Cases (Vol. 1). National Book Store. https://www.rexestore.com/labor-standards/981-the-labor-code-with-comments-and-cases-volume-i-revised-edition.html

MEANING OF "SHARED RESPONSIBILITY." Indeed, failure of management to discuss the provisions of a contemplated code of discipline which shall govern the conduct of its employees would result in the erosion and deterioration of an otherwise harmonious and smooth relationship between them as did happen in the instant case. There is no dispute that adoption of rules of conduct or discipline is a prerogative of management and is imperative and essential if an industry, has to survive in a competitive world. But labor climate has progressed, too. In the Philippine scene, at no time in our contemporary history is the need for a cooperative, supportive and smooth relationship between labor and management more keenly felt if we are to survive economically. Management can no longer exclude labor in the deliberation and adoption of rules and regulations that will affect them.

The complainant union in this case has the right to feel isolated in the adoption of the New Code of Discipline. The Code of Discipline involves security of tenure and loss of employment — a property right! It is time that management realizes that to attain effectiveness in its conduct rules, there should be candidness and openness by Management and participation by the union, representing its members. In fact, our Constitution has recognized the principle of "shared responsibility" between employers and workers and has likewise recognized the right of workers to participate in "policy and decision-making process affecting their rights . . ." The latter provision was interpreted by the Constitutional Commissioners to mean participation in "management"' (Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. II).

In a sense, participation by the union in the adoption of the code of conduct could have accelerated and enhanced their feelings of belonging and would have resulted in cooperation rather than resistance to the Code. In fact, labor-management cooperation is now "the thing." (G.R. No. 85985. August 13, 1993)

CASE: Section 3, Article XIII (on Social Justice and Human Rights) of the Constitution declares:

The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.

Article 260 of the Labor Code (Grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration) states:

The parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement shall include therein provisions that will ensure the mutual observance of its terms and conditions. They shall establish a machinery for the adjustment and resolution of grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of their Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies.

Article 261 of the Labor Code (Jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators), on the other hand, reads in part:

The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies[.]

Article 262 of the Labor Code (Jurisdiction over other labor disputes) declares:

The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, upon agreement of the parties, shall also hear and decide all other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks. (G.R. No. 197309 October 10, 2012)

Popular Posts