UNION BUSTING
Cite Vergara in contempt, San Agustin union asks CA

By Ronilo L. Pamonag

Officers of the University of San Agustin Employees Union are asking the Court of Appeals to hold in contempt university president, Fr. Agustin Vergara, for illegally terminating them.

But the camp of Vergara merely shrugged off the contempt charge, which is the second in just a span of few months, the first being in connection with another case for refusal to issue school records of expelled student despite a court order.

“That's baseless,” the university's lawyer said.

The latest accusation came in the wake of the termination ‘upon receipt' of the officers of the union on the ground that they conducted an illegal strike in 2003.

Our lawyer has already asked the CA to hold Vergara in contempt for executing a decision which is the subject of a pending motion for reconsideration, Union president Theodore Neil Lasola told THE NEWS TODAY in a phone interview yesterday, although he is unsure as to date of the filing of the motion.

But I'm quite sure that our lawyer has taken steps to remedy this situation, he stressed.

Vergara is the lone respondent in the contempt charge because it was only him who signed the termination order, Lasola explained further.

In a press statement faxed to different media outlets earlier this week, the Union said, “This is to inform the General Public that all union officers of the University of San Agustin Employees Union (USAEU)-FFW had been terminated effective 5 March 2005 even if the decision of the Court of Appeals is not yet final and executory.”

Other than Lasola, similar termination orders were also served upon Flaviano Manalo, Rene Cabalum, Ma. Luz Calzado, Ray Anthony Zuñiga, Rizalene Villanueva, Rudante Dolar, Merlyn Jara, Monalisa Bautista, Ma. Connie Alger, Mximo Montero, Apolbin de Asis, Rover John Tavaro, Alfredo Goriona, Julius Mario, John Mirasol, Hermenigildo Calzado, Danilo Lee Pac Hee, Nelza Laurea and Rene Lete.

The termination is clearly a form of union busting.

What will happen now to the union without its officers? Especially now it is nearing negotiations for the next Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Although Labor Sec. Patricia Sto. Tomas found nothing wrong with the conduct of the strike, the CA ruled otherwise, and said that the University could terminate the officers of the Union .

Until now, the CA has yet to rule on the motion for reconsideration.

Vergara should not have terminated us because the decision of the CA is not yet final and executory, Lasola further argued.

It can only be carried out after the lapse of the period to appeal with no appeal taken.

Lasola also questioned the failure of the University to implement the decision on the aspect of increase in their benefits, to which the CA ruled in their favor.What happened here is that the school carried only that part of the decision which is favorable to them and not that which is adverse to them.

Baseless

Lawyer Sabino Padilla III, the lawyer for the University, downplayed the contempt charge as ‘baseless.'

The University was merely following the decision of the Court of Appeals, Padilla pointed out.

The Court said we now have the option to terminate the officers, and so we exercised the option, the Manila-based lawyer said during yesterday's telephone interview.

There is no union busting here, he said.

Moreover, Sabino commented, the act of the University in following the decision of the Court does not constitute contemptuous behavior.

If we are to follow the logic of the Union that the University cannot terminate them because there is a pending motion for reconsideration, then that would render the option granted to the management inutile, Sabino said, adding that the school has the option under the Labor Code.

If later it is found out that we illegally terminated them, there is still the remedy of reinstatement, he added.

Reacting on the issue of benefits, Padilla said that it is still an unsettled controversy.

That issue is still pending, so we cannot carry out the decision year, he stressed.

For the meantime, however, they have yet to receive a copy of the motion to cite his client in contempt.