Parties:

Leyte Commercial Center, Inc., and Leyte Commercial Center, Inc. Employee’s Union

Type:

Proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement

Provision:

Article IV Sec. 1

Probation period. An employee hired by the CORPORATION shall be required to undergo

a probationary period of five (5) continuous calendar months. If, upon completing the
probationary period, the employee is retained, he shall automatically be granted a
permanent status. The probationary period may be shortened at the discretion of the
CORPORATION.

Issue:

On the part of the Employer, the 5 months probationary period is unfair because it
deprives them of an adequate time to evaluate the qualifications of the candidate.

On the part of the Employee, the 5 months is too short to properly learn the processes
and show-case his mastery of the employment.

What could have been done?

The time should be lengthen to 6 months in the absence of special circumstances that
warrant the cutting down of the probationary period as required by law.

Article IV, Sec. 6

Contracting out. The CORPORATION shall not, on any occasion, contract out jobs or
functions regularly performed by the permanent rank and file employees covered by the
CBA.

Issue:

On the part of the Employer, it is an unfair and oppressive provision in light of the
globalization of business transactions, where it has become inevitable to venture into
outsourcing as an installment of labor-saving device.

What could have been done?

The prohibition should not have been made absolute. It should be qualified by reasonable
circumstances, such as, in the exercise of management prerogative in order to streamline
the organizational structure to the level of utmost efficiency and productivity, while
saving on cost.
 Article XI, Sec. 2

Compulsory retirement. Any employee who reaches the age of forty-five (45) years, shall
be subject to compulsory retirement, regardless of length of service in the CORPORATION.

Issue:

On the part of the Employee, it would be unfair to force a person to retire at the age of
45 without compelling reason for doing so, such as the nature of the business. People, in
general are still dynamic and at their prime, a compulsory retirement is tantamount to
tyranny against the right of the employee to his security of tenure.

On the part of the Employer, the phrase “regardless of length of service in the
CORPORATION”, is prejudicial to the Employer. The rationale of retirement benefits is to
award the Employee for his loyalty and dedication to the company. The provision,
however, suggests that the employee could just be newly hired 1 year before his 45th
birthday and after such, he may be entitled to retirement pay. This is contrary to the
prevailing spirit of the law and is oppressive to Capital.

What could have been done?

For the Employee, the retirement age could be changed to an older age in order to fully
utilize his potential and maximize his growth in the industry or profession.

For the Employer, at the very least, the minimum requirement of the law of 5 years should
be applied in order to uphold the spirit of the law.

Additional Provisions:

 No Strike, No Lock out Clause

In order to promote a harmonious work place by pushing the parties to sit down and settle their
differences without the danger of the harmful effects of a strike or a lockout.

 Creation of a Labor and Management Council

To advance the rights of the workers to participate in the decision-making with regard the
provisions concerning them. In order to promote the Principle of Co-determination in the spirit of
our Labor Laws.