JULIUS CAESAR BARNACHEA AND JOHNSON & JOHNSON SALES AND OFFICE UNION-FFW, PETITIONERS, VS. JOHNSON & JOHNSON PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

Barnachea versus Johnson and Johnson Philippines

The Case

This is a labor case about the dismissal of a union president. Julius Caesar Barnachea, together with the Johnson and Johnson Sales and Office Union-FFW, brought this action against Johnson and Johnson Philippines, Incorporated, to challenge the legality of his termination from employment. The dispute was submitted to voluntary arbitration, and the central question is whether the employer had just cause to dismiss him, or whether the dismissal was really an act of union busting. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats findings of a voluntary arbitrator, how poor work performance and submission of spurious documents can justify dismissal, and how narrowly the doctrine of union busting is applied.

Procedural History

The parties voluntarily submitted their dispute to Voluntary Arbitrator Francis Sobreviñas for a ruling on the legality of the termination. The Voluntary Arbitrator issued a Decision dismissing the complaint, and later issued an Order denying the motion for reconsideration. From these, Barnachea and the Union filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which is the proper mode of appeal from the award of a voluntary arbitrator. The case thus reached the Supreme Court by petition for review, with the petitioners assigning as errors the findings that Barnachea was validly terminated on the grounds of poor sales performance, unauthorized absences, and submission of falsified documents.

Facts

Julius Caesar Barnachea was employed as a Territory Representative of Johnson and Johnson Philippines, Incorporated, and he was also the president of the employees' union. In the years 2006 to 2008 he was a consistent quota achiever. Thereafter, the company placed him under a Performance Improvement Plan, and his sales performance for the years 2009 to 2011 fell short of the targets. The company lowered his sales quota relative to other Territory Representatives, yet he still failed to meet the standards.

The company also charged him with unauthorized absences on 17 to 21 December 2011, when he failed to attend the Business Planning and quota setting workshop. Barnachea explained that he had rebooked his return flight from the United States in time for the workshop, but that he was unable to attend because of severe toothache and swollen gums, for which he filed a sick leave supported by a dental certificate. The company also alleged that he submitted a falsified or dummy Philippine Airlines e-ticket and falsified receipts, and that he violated the Employees' Code of Conduct on deceit and dishonesty.

Barnachea and the Union countered that the Performance Improvement Plan was the subject of pending preventive mediation cases and a notice of strike, that the quotas were unrealistic, and that his dismissal was harassment meant to bust the union. The Voluntary Arbitrator dismissed the complaint, and the Supreme Court upheld that ruling.

Issues

• Whether or not the Voluntary Arbitrator erred in finding that Barnachea was validly terminated on the ground of poor sales performance under the Performance Improvement Plan.
• Whether or not the Voluntary Arbitrator erred in finding that Barnachea was validly terminated on the ground of unauthorized absences during the Business Planning.
• Whether or not the Voluntary Arbitrator erred in finding that Barnachea was validly terminated on the ground of submission of falsified documents.
• Whether or not Barnachea's dismissal amounted to union busting in violation of the union's right to self-organization.

Applicable Provisions

Article 276, paragraph c, of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides:

In case of bargaining deadlocks, the duly certified or recognized bargaining agent may file a notice of strike or the employer may file a notice of lockout with the Department at least thirty (30) days before the intended date thereof. In cases of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be fifteen (15) days and in the absence of a duly certified or recognized bargaining agent, the notice of strike may be filed by any legitimate labor organization in behalf of its members. However, in case of dismissal from employment of union officers duly elected in accordance with the union constitution and by-laws, which may constitute union busting where the existence of the union is threatened, the 15-day cooling-off period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately.

This provision supplies the Court's definition of union busting, which is the dismissal of duly elected union officers that threatens the very existence of the union.

Ruling

The Court ruled in the negative on all the assigned errors, holding that the Voluntary Arbitrator did not err and that Barnachea was validly terminated. On the first issue, the Court held that his failure to reach the sales quotas under the Performance Improvement Plan was tantamount to poor work performance and was a proper cause for dismissal. The claim that the quotas discriminated against union members was not substantiated, because the quotas were implemented on a company-wide scale.

On the second issue, the Court held that his absence during the Business Planning could not be excused, since as a Territory Representative he was expected to attend it, and his absence was a failure to perform a duty of his position. The Court found his evidence wanting: he could have shown his intent and his actual return to the Philippines by presenting his duly stamped passport, but instead he presented a Philippine Airlines e-ticket that was later shown to be a mere dummy ticket. The dental certificate, in turn, was issued by a mere dental assistant who had no license to practice dentistry and was therefore not legally and professionally capable of diagnosing his dental condition.

On the third issue, the Court found that he had submitted documents which were not what they purported to be, which supported the employer's loss of trust. On the fourth issue, the Court held that there was no union busting. It defined the concept through the statute, holding that under Article 276, paragraph c, there is union busting when the existence of the union is threatened by the employer's act of dismissing the former's officers who have been duly elected in accordance with its constitution and by-laws. While it was undisputed that Barnachea was a duly elected officer and that he was dismissed, the Court found no evidence that the dismissal was done in bad faith or that it threatened the union's existence. Apart from the fact of his presidency, the petitioners adduced no proof that the dismissal weakened or sabotaged the union's bargaining position or had a similar effect.

Doctrine

First, poor work performance, shown by a consistent failure to meet sales quotas under a Performance Improvement Plan applied on a company-wide scale, is a just cause for dismissal. Second, an employee's failure to attend a required company activity that is part of his duties is a failure to perform his work and may be taken against him. Third, the submission of documents that are not what they purport to be, such as a dummy airline ticket, justifies the employer's loss of trust and confidence. Fourth, union busting, as defined in Article 276, paragraph c, of the Labor Code, requires proof that the dismissal of a duly elected union officer threatened the existence of the union; the mere fact that the dismissed employee is a union officer does not by itself establish union busting, and bad faith and a threat to the union's existence must be shown by convincing evidence.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Review, and the dismissal of Barnachea from employment by Johnson and Johnson Philippines, Incorporated, was upheld as valid.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that union busting exists only when the dismissal of a duly elected union officer threatens the existence of the union, and that threat must be proved, not presumed from the officer's rank. Examiners like to use this case to test the elements of union busting under Article 276, paragraph c, and to test whether poor performance and submission of spurious documents are sufficient just causes for dismissal.