Pncc Skyway Traffic Management and Security Division Workers Organization

March 19, 2019 | Author: whatrich | Category: Employment, Common Law, Politics, Virtue
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

skyway...

Description

PNCC SKYWAY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SECURITY DIVISION WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PSTMSDWO), represented ! "ts Pres"dent, RENE SORIANO #s$ # s$ PNCC SKYWAY SKYWAY CORPORATION G$R$ N%$ &'&& (February 17, 2010) F*+ts Petitioner PNCC Skyway Corporation Trafc Manageent an! Security "i#i$ion %orker$& 'rganiation (PSTMS"%') i$ a abor union !uy regi$tere! regi$tere! wit* t*e "epartent o+ abor an! -poyent ("'-). /e$pon!ent PNCC Skyway Corporation i$ a corporation !uy organie! an! operating un!er an! by #irtue o+ t*e aw$ o+ t*e P*iippine$. T*ey entere! into C. Pertinent pro#i$ion$ are a$ +oow$34 /T5C- 6555 6C 6 CT5'N T5'N -6- N" S5C S5C  -6Section 1. 6acation ea#e. b4 The company shall schedule the vacation leave of  employe employees es during during the year taking taking into consider consideration ation the the requ reques estt of pref prefer eren enc ce of the the empl employ oyee ees. s. (ep*a$i$ $uppie!)

Iss-e .e/d

PNCC t*en create! a $c*e!ue o+ ea#e$ +or t*eir epoyee$.4 Petitioner ob8ecte! ob8ecte! to t*e ipeentati ipeentation on o+ t*e $ai! eoran!u eoran!u.. 5t in$i$te! in$i$te! t*at t*e in!i#i!ua eber$ o+ t*e union *a#e t*e rig*t to $c*e!ue t*eir #acation ea#e. 5t opine! t*at t*e uniatera $c*e!uing $c*e!uing o+ t*e epoyee$& #acation ea#e wa$ !one to a#oi! t*e onetiation o+ t*eir #acation ea#e in "eceber 2009. %'N t*e PNCC *a$ t*e $oe !i$cretion to $c*e!ue t*e #acation ea#e$ o+  it$ epoyee$.  :-S. Petitioner Petitioner in$i$te! t*at t*eir union eber$ *a#e t*e pre+erence pre+erence in $c*e!uing t*eir #acation ea#e. 'n t*e ot*er *an!, re$pon!ent argue! t*at t*at rti rtic ce e 6555 6555,, Sect Sectio ion n 1 (b) (b) gi#e gi#e$ $ t*e t*e ana anage gee ent nt t*e t*e ;na ;na $ay $ay regar!ing t*e #acation ea#e $c*e!ue o+ it$ epoyee$. /e$pon!ent ay take into con$i!eration t*e epoyee$& pre+erre! $c*e!ue, but t*e $ae i$ not controing.  T*e rue i$ t*at w*ere t*e anguage o+ a contract i$ pain an! unabiguou$, it$ eaning $*ou! be !eterine! wit*out re+erence to eui#oca. rtice rtice 6555, Section 1 (b) (b) o+ t*e C categoricay categoricay pro#i!e$ pro#i!e$ t*at t*e $c*e!uing $c*e!uing o+ #acation #acation ea#e shall  shall  be un!er t*e option o+ t*e epoyer.  T*u$, i+ t*e ter$ o+ a C are cear an! ea#e no !oubt upon t*e intention o+ t*e contracting partie$, t*e itera eaning o+ it$ $tipuation $*a pre#ai. 5n ;ne, t*e C u$t be $tricty a!*ere! to an! re$pecte! i+ 

it$ en!$ *a#e to be ac*ie#e!, being t*e aw between t*e partie$. In Faculty Association of Mapua Institute of Technology (FAMIT) v. Court of   Appeals, t*i$ Court *e! t*at t*e C !uring it$ i+etie bin!$ a t*e partie$. T*e pro#i$ion$ o+ t*e C u$t be re$pecte! $ince it$ ter$ an! con!ition$ con$titute t*e aw between t*e partie$. T*e partie$ cannot be aowe! to c*ange t*e ter$ t*ey agree! upon on t*e groun! t*at t*e $ae are not +a#orabe to t*e. T4*e purpo$e o+ a #acation ea#e i$ to a=or! a aborer a c*ance to get a uc*?nee!e! re$t to repeni$* *i$ worn?out energy an! ac>uire a new #itaity to enabe *i to efcienty per+or *i$ !utie$, an! not erey to gi#e *i a!!itiona $aary an! bounty. ccor!ingy, t*e #acation ea#e pri#iege wa$ not inten!e! to $er#e a$ a!!itiona $aary, but a$ a non? onetary bene;t. To gi#e t*e epoyee$ t*e option not to con$ue it wit* t*e ai o+ con#erting it to ca$* at t*e en! o+ t*e year wou! !e+eat t*e #ery purpo$e o+ #acation ea#e. 5n!ee!, t*e utitu!e or $carcity o+ per$onne anning t*e toway$ $*ou! not re$t upon t*e option o+ t*e epoyee$, a$ t*e pubic u$ing t*e $kyway $y$te $*ou! be a$$ure! o+ it$ $a+ety, $ecurity an! con#enience. Petitioner&$ contention t*at abor contract$ $*ou! be con$true! in +a#or o+ t*e aborer i$ wit*out ba$i$ an!, t*ere+ore, inappicabe to t*e pre$ent ca$e. T*i$ rue o+ con$truction !oe$ not bene;t petitioner$ becau$e, a$ $tate!, t*ere i$ *ere no roo +or interpretation. Since t*e C i$ cear an! unabiguou$, it$ ter$ $*ou! be ipeente! a$ t*ey are written.

View more...

Comments

Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.
SUPPORT KUPDF