UNION CARBIDE LABOR UNION (NLU), PETITIONER, VS. UNION CARBIDE PHILIPPINES, INC. AND THE HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR, RESPONDENTS.

This refers to a petition for
review of the decision of the then Secretary of Labor Blas Ople handed
down on February 7, 1975 which set aside the decision of the Arbitrator
ordering reinstatement with backwages, and instead adjudged the payment of
separation pay; and the resolution dated July 24, 1975 denying petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration for
lack of merit.

The undisputed facts as found by the Secretary of Labor are as
follows:

“. . . Complainants Agapito Duro, Alfredo Torio, and Rustico
Javillonar, were dismissed from their employment after an application for
clearance to terminate them was approved by the Secretary of Labor on December
19, 1972. Respondent’s application for
clearance was premised on “willful violation of Company regulations, gross
insubordination and refusal to submit to a Company investigation x x x.”

Prior events leading to the dismissal of complainants are recited
in the Arbitrator’s decision, which we quote:

‘It appears that the Company is operating on three (3) shifts
namely: morning, afternoon and night
shifts. The workers in the third shift
normally work from Monday to Saturday, the last working day being Friday or
forty (40) hours a week or from Monday to Friday.

‘Sometime in July 1972, there seems to be a change in the working
schedule from Monday to Friday as contained in the collective bargaining
agreement aforecited to Sunday thru Thursday. The change became effective July 5, 1972. The third shift employees were required to start the new work
schedule from Sunday thru Thursday.

‘On November 6, 1972, the night shift employees filed a demand to
maintain the old working schedule from Monday thru Friday. (Letter of November 6, 1972 addressed to the
Committee on Labor Relation, UCLU). The
demand was referred to the Labor Management Relation Committee and discussed
from November 15, up to November 24, 1972. In the discussions had, it was arrived at that all night shift operating
personnel were allowed to start their work Monday and on Saturday. This excepted the employees in the
maintenance and preparation crews whose work schedule is presumed to be
maintained from Sunday to Thursday. The
work schedule between management representatives and the alleged officers of
the Union (Varias group) was approved and disseminated to take effect November
26, 1972. (Exh. “2”
Respondent).

‘In manifestation of their
dissention to the new work schedule, the three respondents Duro, Torio, and
Javillonar did not report for work on November 26, 1972 which was a Sunday
since it was not a working day according to the provisions of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement. (Exh.
“A”-Complainant). Their
absence caused their suspension for fourteen (14) days.” (pp. 29-30,
Rollo)

On May 4, 1973, the Arbitrator rendered a decision ordering the
reinstatement with backwages of the complainants. On June 8, 1973,
the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed respondent company’s appeal
for having been filed out of time. A
motion for reconsideration which was treated as an appeal was then filed by
respondent company before the Secretary of Labor, resulting in the modification
of the Arbitrator’s decision by awarding complainants separation pay. A motion for reconsideration subsequently
filed by the petitioner was denied for lack of merit.

Hence, this petition.

The main issue in this case is whether or not the complainants
could be validly dismissed from their employment on the ground of
insubordination for refusing to comply with the new work schedule.

Petitioner alleges that the change in the company’s working
schedule violated the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement of the
parties. Hence, complainants cannot be
dismissed since their refusal to comply with the re-scheduled working hours was
based on a provision of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement. Petitioner further contends that the dismissal of the complainants
violated Section 9, Article II of the 1973 Constitution which provides
“the right of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining,
security of tenure and just and humane conditions of work.”

The petition has no merit.

Although Article XIX of the CBA provides for the duration of the
agreement, which We quote:

“This agreement shall become effective on September 1, 1971
and shall remain in full force and effect without change until August 31,
1974. Unless the parties hereto agree
otherwise, negotiation for renewal, or renewal and modification, or a new
agreement may not be initiated before July 1, 1974.”

this does not necessarily mean that the
company can no longer change its working schedule, for Section 2, Article II of
the same CBA expressly provides that:

“SECTION 2. In the
exercise of its functions of
management, the COMPANY shall have the sole and exclusive right and power,
among other things, to direct the operations and the working force of its
business in all respects; to be the sole judge in determining the capacity or
fitness of an employee for the position or job to which he has been assigned;
to schedule the hours of work, shifts and work schedules; to require work to be
done in excess of eight hours or on Sundays or holidays as the exigencies of
the service may require; to plan, schedule, direct, curtail and control factory
operations and schedules of production; to introduce and install new or
improved production methods or facilities; to designate the work and the
employees to perform it; to select and hire new employees; to train new employees and improve the skill and ability of
employees; to make rules and regulations governing conduct and safety;
to transfer employees from one job to another or from one shift to another; to
classify or reclassify employees; and
to make such changes in the duties of its employees as the COMPANY may see fit
or convenient for the proper conduct of its business.”

Verily and wisely, management retained the prerogative, whenever
exigencies of the service so require, to change the working hours of its
employees. And as long as such
prerogative is exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s
interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of
the employees under special laws or under valid agreements, this Court will uphold such exercise (San Miguel
Brewery Sales Force Union (PTGWO) vs.
Ople, 170 SCRA 25 [1989]).

Thus, in the case of Abbott Laboratories (Phil.)
Inc. vs. NLRC (154 SCRA 713 [1987]), We ruled:

“. . . Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of employees, it must also protect the right of an
employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. The free will of management to conduct its
own business affairs to achieve its purpose cannot be denied.” (p. 717)

Further, the incident complained of took place sometime in 1972,
so there is no violation of the 1973 Constitution to speak of because the
guarantee of security of tenure embodied under Section 9, Article II may not be given a retroactive
effect. It is the basic norm that
provisions of the fundamental law should be given prospective application only,
unless legislative intent for its retroactive application is so provided.

As pointed out by Justice Isagani Cruz, to wit:

“Finally, it should be observed that the provisions of the
Constitution should be given only a prospective
application unless the contrary is clearly
intended. Were the rule
otherwise, rights already acquired or vested might be unduly disturbed or
withdrawn even in the absence of an unmistakable intention to place them
within the scope of the Constitution.” (p. 10, Constitutional Law, Isagani Cruz, 1991 Edition)

We agree with the findings arrived at by both Arbitrator and the
Secretary of Labor that there is no unfair labor practice in this case. Neither was there gross and habitual neglect
of complainants’ duties. Nor did the
act of complainants in refusing to follow
the new working hours amount to serious
misconduct or willful disobedience to the orders of respondent company.

Although no serious objections may be offered to the Arbitrator’s
conclusion to order reinstatement with backwages of the complainants, We now
refrain from doing so considering that reinstatement is no longer feasible due to the fact that the controversy started
more than 20 years ago aside from the obviously strained relations between the
parties.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr.,
(Chairman), Bidin, Davide, Jr., and
Romero, JJ., concur.