NLRC favors employers more than workers
Philippine Daily Inquirer
When my wife filed a case against a big fast-food chain a year ago, a lawyer told me that it could be such a waste of time. He said that if we would like to seek justice, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) wouldn’t be the right venue because seldom can we find labor arbiters who can’t be bought. We did not believe him. We pushed through with the case because we had overwhelming evidence to prove our case, and we felt that we should give our judicial system a chance to prove itself. Otherwise, there will be no more hope for this country.
However, as time passed by, friends told us about their own bad experience with NLRC, about questionable decisions of labor arbiters, about the inaction and indifference of those mandated to execute orders. Not to mention the news stories about decisions of labor arbiters that seem unfair and unjust. These decisions involved celebrated news about unfair labor practices, and traces of corruption were already evident. We can only imagine how many more unfair decisions in cases filed by ordinary workers.
When the decision on our case came last week, I had the biggest shock of my life. Even an adverse decision would be very easy to accept if only there was an iota of fairness and objectivity in it. The problem is the labor arbiter virtually copied the position of the respondent, line by line, even word for word in some instances. He adopted the lies of the respondents, the fallacies they used in their arguments, and he was silent on the issues the respondents deliberately refused to answer. I have this suspicion that it was actually the respondents who wrote the decision and all the labor arbiter did was to sign it.
The NLRC we have today is a far cry from the NLRC of Cory Aquino. These days, the agency seems to be mostly in favor of the employer. Considering that the NLRC is mandated to be the bastion of a worker’s right, this is very unfortunate, to say the least. I suggest that Congress look into the track record of the NLRC. I was told that most of its decisions favor the employers. I was also told that if its decisions favor employees only in instances where the employers cannot afford to pay bribes.
I think the proposal to abolish the NLRC is practical and timely. The agency has done nothing to stop the malpractice of keeping its employees probationary no matter how long they have been in service. They also have done almost nothing to ensure that employees get the pay mandated by law. It is about time to abolish the NLRC and change it with an agency that is truly protective of the right of workers.
GERARD ESTELLA, San Andres Bukid, Manila
