Justice for Dusit Hotel Workers

HIS EXCELLENCY BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III
President
Republic of the Philippines
Malacaсang Palace
Manila

Dear Mr. President:

I am attaching my signature to the letter of the 90 Dusit Hotel workers in support of their effort to seek justice and have the Supreme Court en banc to review their case for unjust dismissal. I also support their effort for the implementation by the Philippine Government of the ILO recommendation on case number 2716 (Dusit Thani Hotel).

SEEKING JUSTICE:

We the undersigned Dusit Hotel Workers respectfully appeal to you to help us compel the Supreme Court to take cognizance of our case en banc as well as instruct the concerned government agencies, led by the Department of Labor and Employment to promptly look into and to comply with the November 2010 findings and recommendations of the Committee of Freedom of Association of the International Labor Organization (ILO) regarding the Dusit Hotel case. The issue pertains not only to us but to all workers since the decision penned by Justice Presbitero Velasco of the 2nd Division of the Court ruled, by twisted and tortured logic, that by exercising our right to freedom of expression by shaving our heads will be treated as an illegal strike despite the absence of work stoppage and slowdown.

To summarize those fateful events:

On 18 January 2002 the Dusit Hotel prevented us, its employees, from reporting for work after many male staff cropped their hairs in protest of the flagrant dilatory tactics of management in the collective bargaining negotiations, which started as early as October 2000. This forced them and most of their co-workers to instead hold a picket outside the hotel. Hence, in all legal and practical perspectives, it was obviously not a strike contrary to what the management has accused the workers of.

On 26 January 2002 Dusit dismissed 90 of us, including 29 union officers who comprised the entire union leadership, and suspended 136 other employees, many of whom were union members , women and other males, who did not even cut their hair. Clearly, this revealed the hotels sinister design to bust the union. In retrospect, the hotel succeeded, and not without the Supreme Courts rulings on the case.

Unfortunately, the government agencies concerned seemed to have conspired with Dusit management when they sustained the dismissal of the unions complaints for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice. First, the National Labor Relations Commission, second, the Court of Appeals and finally the Supreme Court which even further legitimized and reinforced the hotels illegal acts or violation of the workers trade union rights.

For instance, Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. asserted that when the workers violated the Dusit grooming standards, it caused disruptions in the hotel operations and thus tantamount to an unprotected mass action or not sanctioned by law, hence should be considered as an illegal strike. Likewise, the Velasco ruling declared that when the employees went to work with shaven heads, there was clearly a deliberate and concerted action to undermine the authority of and to embarrass Dusit and therefore, not a protected action again. These and other outrageous rulings had become law (G.R. 163942 and G.R. 166295)

When the SC with undue haste junked the MRs and MIs or were simply noted without action, the Dusit union as well as a growing number of unions and other organizations and individuals, including those in the legal community, have started to wonder: Whats so special or valuable in the Dusit case that have prompted the SC to zealously refuse to review the division decision en banc? This, despite the Velasco rulings wide-ranging effects and implications on the current labor, civil or constitutional rights, which should have warranted an automatic reappraisal by the entire Supreme Court.

It is, in fact, expressly stipulated in Article VIII, Section 4 (3) of the 1987 Constitution, which says that when theres a doctrinal or constitutional issues involved, it must be reviewed or resolved by the Supreme Court en banc. The Velasco decision has in fact turned topsy-turvy the customary concepts of a strike, which as any new union member who had undergone a basic labor seminar knows and as any law student who attended labor law class knows is very much different from a picket. The Velasco ruling is clearly a form of judicial legislation, because the SC in effect, amended the statutory definition of strike when it deemed the shaving of ones hair to amount to an illegal strike!

Moreover, the Resolution denying our motion for reconsideration dated February 9, 2009 further indicates a conspiracy, when one of the justices whom the division clerk identified to have approved the same was Justice Ruben Reyeswho already retired more than one month earlier on January 2, 2009. Thus, since Justice Reyes replacement had not yet been designated on February 09, 2009, the 2nd Division with only four members, was not validly constituted as the Supreme Court and therefore cannot validly render said resolution. Just like the plagiarism case against Justice Del Castillo in the case involving Comfort Women, the Court apparently treated non-compliance with the Constitutional mandate to sit en banc or in a division of three, five or seven , as a mere typographical error. Plainly, the Supreme Court cannot sit in a division of only four members.

Fortunately, the Dusit Hotel case being one of the eight cases investigated by the ILO High Level Mission in September 2009 found that:

862. The Committee considers that generally, a strike is a temporary work stoppage (or slowdown) willfully effected by one or more groups of workers.
In the present case, while shaving their heads, the employees had not stopped working.

The Committee considers that equating the mere expression of discontent, peacefully and lawfully exercised, with a strike per se results in a violation of the freedom of association and expression.

866. Considering that the Courts judgment makes reference to, among other things, the expression of protest though the shaving of heads as an illegal strike action in a manner contrary to the principles of freedom of association, the committee requests the Government, within the context of the exploratory talks, to review with the hotel management and the dismissed workers concerned the feasibility of their reinstatement

No less than the ILO declared that the shaving of heads is a peaceful and lawful exercise of the workers right to freedom of association which the government should respect. Again, no less than the Philippine Constitution guarantees the rights of the workers to engage in peaceful concerted activities. There is no gainsaying that the SC culpably violated the Constitution which its members swore to uphold and defend.

In this regard, we, the dismissed Dusit Thani Hotel workers feel helpless and are constrained to seek your help so we could attain the long-delayed justice by ensuring the speedy and full implementation of the ILO recommendation on the Dusit case and likewise help us to compel the Supreme Court to take cognizance of our case en banc. This would hopefully reverse the injustice the State had done to us and would prevent the possible floodgate of union-busting practices the SC ruling had engendered.

LEARN Workers House, Quezon City, Philippines, 1 May 2011


(SGD) REYNALDO C. RASING

(SGD) LAURO JAVIER

(SGD) SONNY UY

(SGD) INISUSAN S. DE VELEZ

(SGD) NORZAMIA F. INTAL

(SGD) CATALINA ORDUNA

(SGD) JOSE MUZONES

(SGD) BERNARD HUGO

(SGD) MAY BELEN LEANO

(SGD) JESUS NONAN

(SGD) LEO ANTONIO ATUTUBO

(SGD) EDWIN E. BALLESTEROS

(SGD) LORETTA DIVINA DE LUNA

(SGD) DENNIS HABER

(SGD) MARITES HERNANDEZ

(SGD) SHANE LAUZ

(SGD) EDGAR LINGHON

(SGD) MILAGROS LOPEZ

(SGD) RAY NERVA

(SGD) MARLYN OLLERO

(SGD) BARTOLOME TALISAYON

(SGD) JUSTO TABUNDA

(SGD) JUN TESORO

(SGD) LYNDON TESORO

(SGD) SALVADOR TIPONES

(SGD) MEL VILLAMUCHO

(SGD) WILFREDO VALLES JR.

(SGD) EMMA Q. DANAO

(SGD)JORDAN ALEJANDRO

(SGD) DANILO AGUINALDO

(SGD)CLARO ABRANTES

(SGD) FELIX ARRIESGADO

(SGD) DAN BAUTISTA

(SGD) MA. THERESA BONIFACIO

(SGD) JUAN BUSCANO

(SGD) FRUMENCIO DE LEON

(SGD) ELLIE DEL MUNDO

(SGD) JONAS COMPENIDO

(SGD) RODELIO ESPINUEVA

(SGD) SHERWIN FALCES

(SGD) JELA FRANZUELA

(SGD)REY GEALOGO

(SGD) ALONA GERNOMINO

(SGD)JAIME IDIOMA, JR.

(SGD) OFELIA LLABAN

(SGD) RENATON LUZONG

(SGD)HERNANIE PABILONIA

(SGD) HONORIO PACIONE

(SGD) JULIO PAJINAG

(SGD) JOSELITO PASION

(SGD) VICENTE PASIOLAN

(SGD) EDUARDO RAMOS

(SGD) IMELDA RASING

(SGD) DELFIN RAZALAN

(SGD) EVANGELINE REYES

(SGD) RODOLFO REYES

(SGD) RIO SALCEDO

(SGD) MA. THERESA SANCHEZ

(SGD) DONATO SAN AGUSTIN

(SGD)RICARDO SOCORRO

(SGD)VALERIO SOLIS

(SGD) DOMINADOR SUAREZ

(SGD)ORLANDO TABUGOCA

(SGD) ROBERT TANEGRA

(SGD) LOURDES TAYAG

(SGD) MAE YAP-DIANGCO

(SGD)GILBERTO VEDASTO

(SGD)DOMINGO VIDAROZAGA

(SGD) DAN VILLANUEVA