7/24/2019 PAL v NLRC (1993)

1/2

PAL v. NLRC

G.R. No. 85985 August 13, 1993

Facts:

PAL completely revised its 1966 Code of Discipline. The Code was circulatedamong the employees and was immediately implemented and some

employees were forthwith su!"ected to the disciplinary measures em!odied

therein. The Philippine Airlines #mployees Association $PAL#A% &led a

complaint !efore the 'ational La!or (elations Commission $'L(C%. PAL#A

contended that PAL !y its unilateral implementation of the Code was guilty

of unfair la!or practice speci&cally Paragraphs # and ) of Article *+9 and

Article *,- of the La!or Code. PA L#A alleged that copies of the Code had

!een circulated in limited num!ers that !eing penal in nature the Code must

conform with the re/uirements of su0cient pu!lication and that the Code

was ar!itrary oppressive and pre"udicial to the rights of the employees. t

prayed that implementation of the Code !e held in a!eyance that PAL

should discuss the su!stance of the Code with PAL#A that employees

dismissed under the Code !e reinstated and their cases su!"ected to further

hearing and that PAL !e declared guilty of unfair la!or practice and !e

ordered to pay damages PAL asserted its prerogative as an employer to

prescri!e rules and regulations regarding employee2s3 conduct in carrying out

their duties and functions and alleging that !y implementing the Code it

had not violated the collective !argaining agreement $C4A% or any provision

of the La!or Code. Assailing the complaint as unsupported !y evidence PAL

maintained that Article *,- of the La!or Code cited !y PAL#A re5ered to the

re/uirements for negotiating a C4A which was inapplica!le as indeed thecurrent C4A had !een negotiated.

Issue:

7' the formulation of a Code of Discipline among employees is a shared

responsi!ility of the employer and the employees.

Ruling:

Petitioner3s assertion that it needed the implementation of a new Code of

Discipline considering the nature of its !usiness cannot !e overemphasi8ed.

n fact its !eing a local monopoly in the !usiness demands the moststringent of measures to attain safe travel for its patrons. 'onetheless

whatever disciplinary measures are adopted cannot !e properly

implemented in the a!sence of full cooperation of the employees. uch

cooperation cannot !e attained if the employees are restive on account of

their !eing left out in the determination of cardinal and fundamental matters

a5ecting their employment.

7/24/2019 PAL v NLRC (1993)

2/2