Home > Op-ed | To bottom

Assumption of jurisdiction: an abuse to the working class

The rank-and-file Lepanto Employees Union (LEU) launched its strike last Thursday, June 2, more than two years since the 2003 strike that lasted from February 1 to March 1. That strike in 2003 was historic: first, it was their first strike since 1956; second, they “defied” the Assumption of Jurisdiction (AJ) order by then DoLE Undersecretary Patricia Sto. Tomas; and, third they won their case, including the reinstatement of their union leaders despite AJ “defiance”.

The present strike was pushed again by the LEU despite the May 10 AJ by now DOLE Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas.

*****

Since the inception of the AJ, it served to silence any union’s strike. Hence, the AJ continues to be a debatable issue.

On the point of view of the State and the capitalists, any union that will go against the AJ is in defiance of a legal order, as the AJ is contained under the Labor Code. It empowers the DoLE secretary (or the president) to issue an AJ over the dispute in an industry indispensable to national interest. The secretary (or the president), in fact, has the discretion to determine industries considered indispensable to national interest. (Even a liquor or bagoong industry can be classified by the DoLE Secretary as indispensable to the national interest, therefore giving him/her a broad power.) After the issuance of an AJ, the workers may not pursue a strike or shall return to work if they had gone on strike. If despite the order, a strike pushed through it will automatically be classified illegal even with the observance of the legal procedures. Also, the “defiance” of the AJ empowers the employers to terminate the union leaders. By the stroke of a pen, a legally-initiated strike is automatically classified illegal by this AJ provision of the Labor Code.

The Lepanto workers experience is worsened by the AJ provision. They observed that the DOLE secretary irregularly issued the AJ order. The LEU in 2003 observed that the AJ order issued by the DOLE that year quoted en toto the application by LCMC for the said order. Workers alleged that the DOLE always issues AJ in favor of the capitalists. I agree with the workers because the AJ was designed as a weapon of the capitalists to stop any actual or pending strike. It is now used by capitalists to fail any move leading to the stoppage of its operations in the name of profit. That is why it is called class legislation because it was legislated in favor of the capitalist class.

How about the abuse by the DOLE secretary? I never heard of any case decided against the DOLE secretary. Why? Because the Assumption of jurisdiction under the Labor Code institutionalizes that abuse by the concerned DOLE secretary (or the president) in a given case.

On the other hand, the workers view that the AJ is an institutionalized tool to repress workers’ rights, specially their concerted effort to launch a strike. Under the Labor Code, rigid procedural rules are being followed by an employees’ union before they can launch a strike. First, the union must file a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB); second, a strike vote must be undertaken by the union approved by the majority of the members in a secret ballot; third, the result must be reported seven days to the NCMB before the strike; and fourth, there should be a cooling off period.

The above procedures are religiously observed by any union before any strike. But to their dismay, such observance of the legal rules turned out wasted when the DOLE secretary immediately issued an AJ. And to pursue the strike despite such AJ would make the legally initiated union effort illegal. This AJ order does not only institutionalized the non-recognition of due process for these workers. It already condemned them as engaged in an illegal strike without hearing their side. This was the context that the AJ was crafted into the Labor Code. It is obviously anti-workers and pro-capitalists. It was legislated to institute martial rule policies - where unions are never heard because they are already condemned. Workers claim this as contrary to their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression, right to strike, petition the government for redress of grievances etc. That is true. But this AJ provision of the Labor Code continues to exist. Congress is empowered to repeal this anti-workers policy. Instead, Congress continuously passes laws favoring the ruling class as illustrated by the passing of the Expanded Value Added Tax (EVAT) that favors our creditors and capitalists. Yet it pushes our poor people deeper into the quagmire of poverty.

*****

The 2003 experience proved that the workers won their strike despite the issuance of AJ by the DoLE. They did it through their concerted effort from day one of the strike. They asserted that their rights, including the right to strike, are paramount over the AJ. They proved that a united union can use its strength to achieve its demands, including the reinstatement of their leaders who were automatically terminated based on the AJ. Will their present strike become another notch in history? They had proven it in 2003. They can use this historic experience to fuel their struggle for just wages and humane conditions in the workplace. #

Home > Op-ed | Back to top