REINFORCING LABOR RELATIONS THROUGH RESPONSIVE REGULATIONS:
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE REGULATORY REFORM AREAS IN BOOK FIVE OF THE
LABOR CODE, AS AMENDED
Patrick P. Patriwirawan Jr., Dip.IR, MIR
Institute for Labor Studies
Department of Labor and Employment
Manila, Philippines
July 2015
Fourth Regulating for Decent Work Conference
ILO, Geneva, Switzerland
Executive Summary
This policy paper1 intends to answer the longstanding public policy issue in
labor and employment concerning the urgent need to reform the Labor Code of the
Philippines, as amended, particularly Book Five which covers labor relations. Since its
enactment in 1974, profound changes in the socio-economic and political landscapes
have taken place. These changes have influenced the transformation of a new world
of work now perceived to be incongruent with the original framework of the Code.
This paper examines the responsiveness of the Code by analyzing the extent to which
policy objectives have been carried out through the issuance of regulatory
interventions as measured by the identified policy indicators. By definition, labor
relations merits priority towards an omnibus reform as it defines and delimits the
manner, methods and means of interactions, including representations, between and
among stakeholders in the labor market.
This paper adopts Dunlop’s systems theory in industrial relations by substituting
input-process-output-feedback coefficients to labor relations policy elements.
Featuring the predominant industrial relations systems during the incipient phase of
the Labor Code, a corporatist perspective is utilized as it regards the role of the state
as an institutional structure in policy formulation. The framework further incorporates
the role of regulation as it adopts Stigler’s theory of economic regulation. This paper
offers a framework of analysis for regulatory areas, examining enunciated policy
objectives, regulatory issuances, and indicators in labor relations.
Regulatory reform areas identified include labor organization, collective
bargaining, dispute settlement, as well as strikes and lockouts. Data show that there
is relatively a steady decrease in the key indicators considered in this paper. These
include union density rate, collective bargaining coverage rate, and rate of occurrence
of strikes and lockouts. Workers’ association density rate, on the other hand, continues
to rise with the number of employed workers. Moreover, perspectives from a
roundtable discussion including findings from previous policy researches were taken
together as inputs to the policy alternatives. The identification of policy alternatives is
focused at the firm (micro), industry (meso), national (macro) and international (meta)
levels.
The recommendations put forward generally advocate for: (1) alignment of
provisions of the 1974 Labor Code with the fundamental guarantees of the 1987
Philippine Constitution; (2) harmonization with international conventions and other
1
The author gratefully acknowledges the significant contributions gathered from the roundtable
discussion entitled “Key Insights for Responsive Regulations: A Review of Books V and VI of the Labor
Code of the Philippines” hosted by the Institute for Labor Studies in partnership with the UP School of
Labor and Industrial Relations (SOLAIR), conducted on 11 September 2013 at the Don Isabelo Delos
Reyes Auditorium, UP SOLAIR, to draw perspectives as input to this research. The discussion was
participated in by luminaries in the field of labor relations and labor code reform: former labor secretary
Ruben Torres; former labor undersecretaries Rene Ofreneo, Leogardo Vicente Jr., and Benedicto
Ernesto Bitonio Jr.; Dean Froilan Bacungan; and Prof. Cesario A. Azucena Jr.
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
2
labor-related instruments; (3) expansion of the coverage of employment and
employment relations to include the promotion of gender equity and equality in the
definition of employment relations; (4) recognition of the emerging forms of work
arrangements and work representations; (5) integration of voluntary modes of
practices and partnerships between workers and employers; and (6) configuration of
more streamlined dispute settlement systems.
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
3
I. ISSUE DEFINITION
In a span of four decades, the Labor Code has been a very influential instrument
affecting the relations between labor and capital. It has defined and regulated the
relationship between workers and employers in particular through the provisions
concerning Labor Relations in Book Five of the Code. It is understood that the Labor
Code was crafted at a time when martial law was declared and an authoritarian form
of government was installed. The change in the form of government has brought
about change in the existing economic paradigm:
The martial law government shifted the economic policy from import
substitution to a foreign investment-led strategy which was oriented
toward expansion of manufacturing exports . . . To attract foreign investors
and assure them of a stable industrial relations environment, the
government promulgated Presidential Decree No. 442, otherwise known as
the Labor Code of the Philippines. (Bitonio, 2012, p. 12)
Macaraya (2005) explained however that the framers of the Code disregarded
the labor market conditions existing during that period where majority of the workers
were in the informal sector. He further noted that several provisions of the Code were
drawn from foreign labor laws being implemented in labor markets where majority of
workers already belonged to the formal sector of the economy. This adoption of
foreign labor laws, he said, led to the implementation of a Labor Code focused on
protecting the smaller segment of the workforce. Macaraya (2013) thus argued that
the need to amend the Philippine Labor Code to attune its provisions with the current
condition of the labor market in light of a growing borderless economy is no longer
an issue but is a matter of survival as a nation.
The responsiveness of the Labor Code has been seen critical in its purpose of
serving social justice2 in the advent of globalized economic paradigm shifts (Confesor,
2010; Macaraya, 2013). Other studies have cited the issue of responsiveness of the
Code to reform and to align with the current labor market governance3 framework
(Bitonio, 2008; 2012; Imperial, 2004; Sale, 2011; Sale & Bool, 2012; Sicat, 2004;
2012; Usui, 2012). Likewise, several reports from multilateral institutions and
stakeholders have expressed similar views (Joint Foreign Chambers of Commerce,
2013; World Bank, 2013). They have all called for reform of the Code not only to
Macaraya noted that the Philippine Labor Code is both an instrument of “social justice” and of
achieving economic development through “demand sidism.” For further discussion on economic shifts
from demand to supply sidism, refer to Macaraya (2013).
3
Labor market governance is defined by Bitonio (2008) as the totality of institutions—including policies,
norms, laws, regulations, structures, mechanisms and processes—that influence the supply and
demand for labor. Sale (2011) identifies labor market governance indicators to include the: extent, size
or levels of workers’ associations, trade unions, collective bargaining agreement coverage, labor
management councils, compliance rates upon labor inspections including those under the Labor
Standards Enforcement Framework, establishments or employers, labor standards and Employees’
Compensation Commission cases handled, and public expenditures in proportion to gross domestic
product and gross national product.
2
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
4
address the economic restrictions of the labor market but also to expand coverage
and protection of workers and employers in both the formal and the informal
economy.
There have been several attempts to reform the Labor Code with the aim of
coming up with appropriate legislative measures that would carry out a new labor
market governance framework in the country. The reform is expected to balance the
needs to create an enabling environment for investments and to ensure social
protection and welfare of workers in an era of highly competitive and globalized
markets. However, attempts to pursue an omnibus amendment4 of the Code have
been found futile. In recent times, reforms are being done piecemeal by amending
certain provisions addressing specific labor relations issues.
This paper yet again attempts to address the pressing issue distinctively
through an examination of labor relations regulations in their role of carrying out the
intended policy objectives as demonstrated in the identified policy outcomes. In
general, it intends to look into the responsiveness of the Labor Code to the changes
in the labor market in general and in employment relations in particular. Specifically,
this paper offers the following: (a) a framework for analyzing the interrelations
between labor relations policy objectives, policy interventions, and policy outcomes;
(b) an understanding of the policy context and alternatives available; and (c)
recommendations that advocate the immediate reform of the Code.
In the broadest sense, “labor relations,” as explained by Azucena (2010), refers
to “the interactions between employer and employees or their representatives and the
mechanisms by which the standards and other terms and conditions of employment
are negotiated, adjusted and enforced” (p. 10). On the other hand, “labor standards”
are “the minimum terms and conditions of employment to which employees are legally
entitled and with which employers must comply” (Azucena, 2010, p. 10). By the
definition, it is critical to consider first the manner and boundaries of the interactions
between employers and employees before trying to consider the very substance of
their interactions. It must be noted however that labor standards and labor relations
are equally important in the operational level as one cannot exist without the other.
Labor relations in the Philippines is critically affected by several factors5 internal
or external to the labor market system: (a) advent of globalization; (b) changes in
It was noted during the roundtable discussion that several Labor Code reviews have been done in the
past. As described by ILS Executive Director Cynthia Cruz, “labor regulation by its very nature is
“Sisyphian”—something that requires endless sometimes tremendous effort as it represents an
important visible and an often controversial aspect of public policy.” In this context, all previous reviews
of the Labor Code are acknowledged as these form part of the knowledge base from which present
effort takes off.
5
These were identified in the roundtable discussion as participants exchanged views on what the
current challenges are in the area of labor relations. Certain realities have also already been identified
in the Philippine Labor and Employment Plan 2011-2016 as current issues and challenges facing the
labor market.
4
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
5
employment relations and work arrangements; (c) emergence of new forms of
workers representation; (d) continuing rise of the informal economy; (e) incongruence
between the 1987 Constitution and Presidential Decree No. 442 (Labor Code); (f)
ratification of international conventions; and (g) issuance and implementation of labor
regulations by various agencies and bureaus of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE). This paper focuses purely on three policy coefficients6 in
understanding regulatory reform areas in labor relations: policy objectives, regulatory
interventions, and policy outcomes. Nevertheless the consideration does not disregard
the impact and contribution of the other factors in the labor market but only limits the
scope and coverage for purposes of discussion.
A roundtable discussion7 conducted in September 2013 was used to gather
perspectives from the relevant stakeholders in the labor market. Policy stakeholders
include representatives from workers’ organizations, employers’ organizations, the
academe, government and nongovernment institutions, and foreign and multilateral
institutions. Relevant studies on reforming the Labor Code were reviewed, highlighting
conditions of the labor market and the significance of the reform. Policy papers were
also considered in the identification of policy alternatives for regulatory reforms in
labor relations. Indicators identified by the International Labour Organization (ILO)
and the Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics (BLES) were adopted as measures
of policy outcomes. Data from BLES covering the period from year 2000 to 2013 were
collated.
The subsequent part of this paper presents the framework used in analyzing
the policy issue and explains why the identified policy issue relates to key concerns in
labor administration. The third part consists of policy contexts identifying relevant
regulatory reform areas in labor relations and recognizing current states and
conditions. Policy alternatives are forwarded in the fourth part, identifying possible
actions that the government may take to resolve the initially identified policy issue.
The final section summarizes the recommendations for appropriate policy action of
decision-makers in the field of labor and employment.
“Policy coefficients” may refer to elements necessary in the understanding of a certain public policy.
Three policy coefficients are identified in this paper. “Policy objective” serves as the basis for creating
policy. “Regulatory intervention” comes in the form of legislation or an administrative regulation. “Policy
outcome” refers to an observed consequence of a policy action (Dunn, 1981).
7
The roundtable discussion drew the varying perspectives of the stakeholders on regulatory reforms
particularly in labor relations and security of tenure. The objectives of the discussion included: (1) to
understand the regulatory reform philosophy in labor relations and security of tenure; (2) to recognize
the paramount issues in labor relations and the importance of regulatory reforms in all levels (micro,
meso, macro and meta) of policy analysis; (3) to gain knowledge of diverging and converging
perspectives and insights from the stakeholders and the academe in the effort to address changes in
employment relations policies; and (4) to establish the way forward and ensue steps for coherent policy
recommendations on regulatory reforms for labor relations and security of tenure.
6
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
6
II. FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS
In assessing the responsiveness of labor relations regulations, theoretical
paradigms have been utilized to understand the process, context and rationale for the
reform. Three theoretical models or perspectives are adopted by this policy analysis:
Dunlop’s systems theory of industrial relations, corporatism, and the theory of
economic regulation.
Dunlop’s systems theory aims to provide not only a general theory of industrial
relations but also a tool of analysis in understanding and interpreting the widest
possible range of industrial relations conditions and situations (Farnham & Pimlott,
1995). This tool of analysis examines input-process-output-feedback coefficients or
factors that play significant and varying roles in influencing the labor market system.
Essentially, Dunlop regards the labor market system as comprising certain actors,
certain contexts, an ideology which binds the industrial relations system together, and
a body of rules created to govern the actors at the work place in particular and the
labor market in general (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie, 1986). By and large, viewing any
sector or system through the scheme of the systems model is an attempt to simplify
something that is relatively complex (Dunn, 1981). Considering the complex regulatory
systems in labor relations, an adaptation of the input-process-output-feedback model
would best illustrate the responsiveness of the Labor Code particularly in terms of how
policy objectives are realized through formulation of policy interventions and formation
of policy outcomes. (See Figure 1 for illustration)
Figure 1. Framework of Analysis
(Adapted from Dunlop’s Industrial Relations System model)
Labor Market Realities
LR Policy
Objectives
INPUT
1987 Philippine Constitution
LR Policy Formulation
PROCESS
Institutions
OUTPUT
PD 442 (Book V)
Labor and Other Legislations
PD 442 (Art. 3 & Art.211)
International Conventions
LR Legislations/
Regulations
Stakeholders
Administrative Regulations
FEEDBACK
LR Policy Implementation
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
7
The theoretical foundation highlighted in understanding the context of the
formulation of labor relations regulations is based on corporatism’s perspective of
industrial relations. This theory defined by Philippe Schmitter and Gerhard Lehmbruch
regards the state, in its relationship with the other institutions that constitute society,
as being autonomous and independent. Corporatism is a system of interest
representation and an institutional pattern of policy formulation (Baccaro, 2003). The
state directly intervenes in the operation of the political or economic system under the
banner of public interest. This intervention is done through bargaining and negotiating
with the various organizations or interest groups that are constituent sections of
society. The perspective recognizes that the state cannot pursue its objectives in
isolation from the actions and desires of other institutions. This industrial relations
perspective is adopted to highlight the political context of the formulation of the 1974
Labor Code.
Finally, the theory of economic regulation by George Stigler (1971) provides an
understanding of the importance of regulations in the labor market particularly in labor
relations. “Regulation is instituted primarily for the protection and benefit of the public
at large or some large subclass of the public,” in this case, the labor force (Stigler,
1971, p. 3). Thus, the state’s formulation of regulations is important in promoting
public interest.
An integrated policy analysis as explained by Dunn (1981) provides for a more
comprehensive form of analysis incorporating production and transformation of
information both before and after policy actions have been taken (Dunn, 1981, p. 54).
This approach demands a “continuous, iterative, and unlimited” examination of the
policy elements (Dunn, 1981, p. 54). Adopting this approach gives a holistic view of
the assessment, from how policies were formulated to how they are being
implemented and what policy outcomes have been produced.
Figure 1 illustrates the systems model using labor relations policy coefficients
to analyze the responsiveness of the Labor Code particularly the provisions in Book
Five. As mentioned earlier, the paper focuses on only three specific policy coefficients.
First, policy objectives, which are expressed in three significant references: (1) the
1987 Philippine Constitution, specifically articles III–Bill of Rights and XIII, Section 3–
Labor; (2) Presidential Decree 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code, as amended,
specifically articles 3 and 211–Declaration of Policy; and (3) international conventions
which the country has ratified and adopted. Second, policy interventions as expressed
through legislations and regulations include: (1) Book Five of the Labor Code, as
amended, (2) labor and other social legislations, and (3) administrative regulations
including implementing rules and regulations and department orders. Third, policy
outcomes, as products of the implementation of such interventions, include labor
relations indicators as identified by BLES in its annual Yearbook of Labor Statistics and
Current Labor Statistics. Policy outcomes are either reflective or not of the initially
enunciated policy objectives.
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
8
III. REGULATORY AREAS IN LABOR RELATIONS
The regulatory areas identified in Book Five of the Labor Code, as amended,
include: labor organization, collective bargaining, dispute settlement, and strikes and
lockouts. To provide an understanding of the current state of the regulatory areas in
labor relations, the identified areas are reviewed through an examination of the policy
objectives, policy interventions, and policy outcomes. A brief policy analysis after
reviewing the three labor relations coefficients is completed to assess the
responsiveness of the identified policy interventions, which aim to realize the intended
policy objectives as demonstrated by the produced policy outcomes. Responsiveness
of the Labor Code is shown when policy outcomes reflect the initially intended policy
objective for any regulatory interventions made.
Labor Organization
Policy objectives. The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that the State “shall
guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization” (Article XIII, Section 3). The
Constitution further provides in Article III, Section 8 that “the right of the people,
including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions,
associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.” The
1974 Labor Code likewise enshrines this right under Article 211-A (b), stating “It is the
policy of the State to promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the
enhancement of democracy and the promotion of social justice and development.” In
addition to these guarantees of rights, the State also ratified in 1953 ILO Convention
No. 87 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise. It
provides that “workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the
right to establish and . . . to join organisations of their own choosing without previous
authorisation” (Part I, Article 3, par. 1).
Policy interventions. From a legislative perspective, the Labor Code, as amended,
provides from articles 234 to 246 the laws regarding labor organization, from
registration and cancellation to rights and conditions of membership, rights of
legitimate labor organizations, and coverage. Moreover, the enactment of Republic
Act (RA) 9481 in 2007 strengthens the workers’ constitutional right to selforganization. This includes, as Sale and Sale (2013) noted:
the relaxation of requirements on charter registration of union locals or
chapters, the eligibility of the unions of rank and file and supervisors in an
establishment to join the same national union or federation, the contraction
of grounds for union registration cancellation, and the applicability of the
“employer bystander rule” during representation disputes. (p. 4)
The administrative regulation that further advances the implementation of
these laws is Department Order (DO) No. 40-03, which provides for the definitions of
both labor organizations and workers’ associations. Sale and Sale (2013) mentioned
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
9
that under DO 40-03, the following have been introduced: trade union combinations,
multi-employer bargaining, CBA deregistration, and interpleader/intervention.
Policy outcomes. Kuruvilla (2006) identified as a usable measure of social dialogue,
particularly for the representation of workers, union density, defined as “the number
of union members expressed either as a percentage of the non-agricultural workforce
or as a percentage of wage and salary workers” (pp. 183-184). Similarly, with the
emergence of workers’ associations, density rates have been recognized and
measured as the percentage of workers association membership against total
employed workers. Studies have found a steady decrease in union density over time
(Bitonio, 2008; 2012; Fashoyin, 2003; Macaraya, 2001; 2013; Sale, 2011; Sale & Bool,
2012; Sale & Sale, 2013; Sibal, 2004). There have also been findings that workers
association density rate continues to increase (Bitonio, 2008; 2012; Macaraya, 2005;
2013; Sale, 2011; Sale & Bool, 2012). Figures 2 and 3 below as collated from the
Yearbook of Labor Statistics (BLES, 2012) and Current Labor Statistics (BLES, 2013a;
2013b; 2013c) show the varying trends between union density rate and workers
association density rate over time (13 years).
Policy analysis. While it is clear that the policy of the State is to promote free trade
unionism and to faithfully implement such policy through legislation and administrative
regulations as previously discussed, the desired policy outcome of an increased union
density rate over time has not been evidently realized. Nevertheless, a new mode of
worker representation in the form of a workers association has emerged as it
particularly caters to workers in the informal economy. Taking into consideration the
framework of analysis, regulations or other interventions on trade unionism have to a
significant extent failed to address the decreasing rate of union density.
30
30.0
25
25.0
20
20.0
15
15.0
10
10.0
5
5.0
0
Density Rate (%)
Number of Workers (in millions)
Figure 2. Total Wage and Salary Workers, Union Membership,
and Union Density Rate
0.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total Wage and Salaried Workers
Union Membership
Net Union Density Rate
Source: BLES, 2009; 2012; 2013a; 2013b; 2013c.
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
10
40,000
4.00
35,000
3.50
30,000
3.00
25,000
2.50
20,000
2.00
15,000
1.50
10,000
1.00
5,000
0.50
0
Density Rate (%)
Number of Persons (in thousands)
Figure 3. Total Employed Workers, Workers Association Membership,
and Workers Association Density Rate
0.00
2003
2004
Employed Persons
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Workers Association Membership
2010
2011
2012
2013
Workers Association Density Rate
Source: BLES, 2009; 2012; 2013a; 2013b; 2013c.
Collective Bargaining and Negotiations
Policy objectives. The right of all workers to collective bargaining and negotiations is
guaranteed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution in Article XIII, Section 3. Similarly
expressed in the 1974 Labor Code, as amended, is the policy of the State “to promote
and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining and negotiations” (Article 211A[a]). This expressed right also has its ILO convention equivalent (C098) ratified in
1953. As provided under Article 4 of C098:
Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where
necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation
of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’
organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of
terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements.
Policy interventions. The legislative aspect of the policy intervention for collective
bargaining is found primarily in articles 250 to 259 of the Labor Code, as amended.
These parts of the Code cover procedures in collective bargaining, duties of the parties
involved, terms included in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and special
concerns in the conduct of collective bargaining or negotiation. In the administrative
regulatory aspect, these laws are implemented through DO 40-03. Rules XV to XVIII
of DO 40-03 provide for the purpose a registry of CBAs and the process of registration.
Policy outcomes. In the attempt to develop a measure of the concept of social dialogue
where stakeholders exchange views, make decisions and enter into agreements,
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
11
Kuruvilla (2006) identified collective bargaining coverage as a tangible measure as it
provides a quantifiable indicator of the number of workers who are actually covered
by CBAs. In the Philippine Labor Index, BLES defines collective bargaining coverage
rate in private establishments as the percentage of workers covered by CBAs in private
establishments out of the total wage and salary workers in private establishments.
Parallel to the observed outcome in union density rates over time, collective bargaining
coverage rates also continue to decrease over time (Bitonio, 2008; 2012; Macaraya,
2005; 2013; Sale, 2011; Sale & Bool, 2012; Sale & Sale, 2013). Generally, it may be
deduced that the continuous decrease in union density would likewise result in a
continuous decrease in collective bargaining coverage rate over the same period of
time. Figure 4 presents the trend in collective bargaining coverage rate with the
number of total wage and salary workers and magnitude of union membership.
Figure 4. Total Wage and Salary Workers, Total Union Membership,
Workers Covered By Existing CBAs, and Coverage Rate
Source: BLES, 2009; 2012; 2013a; 2013b; 2013c.
Policy analysis. Similarly, as union density rate continues to decrease over time,
collective bargaining coverage rate also decreases, since the collective bargaining
coverage rate is a function of the union density rate. The state policy to promote
collective bargaining is expressed in the various regulatory interventions in Book V of
the Labor Code and in the supplementing DOLE order. These interventions have not
been able to reflect the desired policy outcome without prejudice to other factors that
may have influenced the current state of collective bargaining in the Philippines.
Dispute Settlement Mechanisms
Policy objectives. The State through the 1987 Philippine Constitution is mandated to
promote “the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
12
conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial
peace” (Article XIII, Section 3, par. 3). The Constitution also provides for individual
rights of workers as embodied in the Bill of Rights. Article III, Section 11 provides that
“free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies, and adequate legal assistance
shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.” Section 16 of the same article
further provides that “all persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies.” The 1974 Labor Code,
as amended, also enshrines the promotion and emphasis on the use of “voluntary
arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as modes of settling labor or industrial
disputes” (Article 211-A[a]). It further advances the policy of the State “to provide
adequate administrative machinery for the expeditious settlement of labor or industrial
disputes” (Article 211-A[e]). At the international level, however, the ILO does not have
any conventions that pertain to dispute settlements or grievance machineries,
indicating that it does not prescribe any preferred regulatory intervention in dispute
or conflict settlements of its member states.
Policy interventions. At the legislative intervention level, dispute settlement
mechanisms are governed by the laws provided in articles 260 to 262 of the Labor
Code, as amended. They include grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration with
provisions on jurisdiction, procedures and costs. The Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) Act of 2004 (RA 9285) institutionalizes the use of alternative dispute resolution
for the speedy resolution of all disputes, while RA 10396 enacted in 2013
institutionalizes conciliation-mediation as a voluntary mode of dispute settlement for
all labor cases. At the administrative intervention level, two department orders
implement this policy objective. On the one hand, Rule XIX of DO 40-03 provides for
implementing rules on the establishment of grievance machinery and procedures in
handling grievances including details on voluntary arbitration. Rule XXII, particularly
Sections 1 to 4, specifies the implementing rules for conciliation of labor-management
disputes. On the other hand, DO 107-10 provides for the guidelines on the Single
Entry Approach prescribing 30-day mandatory conciliation-mediation services for all
labor and employment cases. Executive Order (EO) No. 97, s. 2012, revoking EO 523,
s. 2006, was likewise issued relative to the enactment of the ADR Act of 2004, which
similarly “promotes the use of alternative modes of dispute resolution such as, but not
limited to, arbitration, mediation, conciliation, and early neutral evaluation as part of
their practice in resolving disputes” (Section 3).
Policy outcomes. In its October 2013 issue of the Current Labor Statistics, BLES defines
“voluntary arbitration” as the “mode of settling labor-management disputes by which
the parties select a competent, trained and impartial person who shall decide on the
merits of the cases and whose decision is final, executory, and unappealable” (p. 86).
While it is the policy of the State to promote voluntary modes of settlement as
discussed, a study by Bitonio in 2008 showed that the number of voluntary arbitration
cases is decreasing. This is supported by Sale (2010) as he noted that, while
compulsory arbitration cases remain high, voluntary approaches are hardly utilized.
(See Annex for statistics on type of cases)
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
13
“Disposition rate” is likewise defined by BLES as the percentage of the number
of cases disposed over number of cases handled. Bitonio (2012) pointed out that “the
entire labor dispute settlement system has been variously described as adversarial,
legalistic and complex, with multiple entry points and multiple layers of appeal” (p.
24). Studies have also noted the decreasing disposition and settlement rate of labor
cases (Bitonio, 2012; Herrera, 2010; Soriano, 2010). Figure 5 (next page) shows the
disposition rate by type of labor cases over time.
Policy analysis. While it is the policy of the State to promote voluntary modes of dispute
settlement and to guarantee speedy disposition of cases, the policy outcomes as
shown by disposition rates and by types of labor cases over a period of time show
otherwise. Disposition rate of voluntary arbitration cases and the use of voluntary
arbitration as compared to compulsory arbitration have been low for the past ten
years. The regulatory interventions formulated have been found futile in realizing the
policy objectives intended for dispute settlements.
Figure 5. Disposition Rate by Type of Labor Case
Disposition Rate (%)
110.00
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Preventive Mediation
Voluntary Arbitration
Med-Arbitration (Original)
Med-Arbitration (Appealed)
Compulsory Arbitration (Original)
Compulsory Arbitration (Appealed)
SEnA Request for Assistance
Labor Standards Cases (Original)
2012
2013
Source: BLES, 2009; 2012; 2013a; 2013b; 2013c.
Strikes and Lockouts
Policy objectives. The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides in Article XIII, Section 3
that the State shall “guarantee the rights of all workers to . . . peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.” This is in harmony with
the individual right of workers as enshrined in the Bill of Rights—the freedom of
association clause. It states that “no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and petition the government for redress of grievances” (Article III, Section 4). The
Declaration of Policy in the Labor Code, however, does not explicitly guarantee the
exercise of strike and/or lockout. There is only a provision under Article 263 that
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
14
recognizes and respects such right. At the international level, similarly, the right to
strike has not been set out in any of the ILO conventions or recommendations.
According to Gernigon, Odero, and Guido (1998), the ILO recognizes the right to strike
in two of its resolutions in the International Labour Conference namely: (1) the
resolution concerning the abolition of anti-trade union legislation adopted in 1957 and
(2) the resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties
adopted in 1970. And although not explicitly mentioned, the Freedom of Association
and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) establishes the
right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to “organize their administration and
activities and to formulate their programmes” (Article 3), and the aims of such
organizations as ‘furthering and defending the interests of workers or of employers’
(Article 10)” (Gernigon, Odero, & Guido, 1998, p. 8).
Policy interventions. In the aspect of legislative intervention, the right to strike/lockout
is governed by the laws provided under articles 263 to 266 of the Labor Code. These
provisions stipulate details on the conduct of strikes, picketing and lockouts, including
assumption of jurisdiction over disputes in an industry indispensable to the national
interest, prohibited activities, effort to settle a strike or a lockout through improved or
reduced offer balloting of the parties respectively, and requirements for arrest and
detention. In terms of administrative intervention, Rule XXII of DO 40-03 lays down
the implementing rules prescribing the grounds for strike or lockout and the
requirements in the exercise of such right. The issuance of DO 40-G-03, s. 2010,
provides for the implementing rules on the assumption by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, the requirement for minimum operational service, finality of decisions,
prohibitions on law enforcement agencies or public officials/employees, armed
persons, private security guards and similar personnel in the private security agency,
and criminal prosecution. A very recent issuance of DOLE, DO 40-H-13 specifies the
industries indispensable to the national interest, which include the hospital sector,
electric power industry, water supply services, air traffic control, and such other
industries as maybe recommended by the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council.
Policy outcomes. In the Philippine Labor Index, BLES defines “notice of strike” as “the
notification filed by a duly registered labor union with the respective National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) regional branches about its intention to go
on strike because of alleged commission by the employer of unfair labor practice acts
or because of deadlock in collective bargaining negotiations” (p. 557). In addition, it
defines “notice of lockout” as “the notification filed by an employer with the
appropriate NCMB regional branches about its intention to temporarily cease its
operation because of alleged unfair labor practice acts committed by a duly registered
labor union or because of a deadlock in collective bargaining negotiations” (p. 558).
Sale and Bool (2012) stated that the workers involved in strike/lockout notices and
actual strike/lockout cases have decreased. Figure 6 (next page) shows the total strike
and lockout notices, actual strikes and lockout cases, and rates of occurrence over
time.
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
15
Policy analysis. It is clear that the right to peaceful concerted activities, including the
right to strike in accordance with law, is guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution
specifically under Article XIII, Section 3, and is recognized and respected by the 1974
Labor Code under Article 263(b), as amended. The decrease in the number of strike
and lockout notices, including actual strikes and lockouts and the rates of occurrence,
however does not necessarily mean that it is not reflective of the policy objective
intended for this regulatory area. Essentially, the provisions state that this right must
be guaranteed and that it must be freely exercisable in accordance with law.
800
9.00
700
8.00
600
7.00
6.00
500
5.00
400
4.00
300
3.00
200
2.00
100
1.00
0
Rate of Occurence (%)
Number of Strikes/Lockouts
Figure 6. Total Strike and Lockout Notices, Actual Strikes and Lockouts,
and Rate of Occurrence
0.00
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Strike/
Lockout Notices
Actual Strikes/
Lockouts
Rate of Occurence
Source: BLES, 2009; 2012; 2013a; 2013b; 2013c.
The data presented among the regulatory areas in labor relations validate the
responsiveness of the identified policy interventions formulated or issued in the
implementation of the said policy objectives. Within the framework of analysis, these
outcomes, whether they are reflective or not of the policy objectives, offer an avenue
for possible policy action or non-action for the government to be able to fully realize
the intent of the labor relations policies. This feedback mechanism as shown in Figure
1 addresses the gaps in the policy objectives (input), the policy formulation (process),
and the policy interventions (output) by identifying policy options. However it must be
noted that this paper primarily focuses on policy coefficients taking consideration of
the legislations passed and the regulations issued for the sole purpose of fully
implementing the said policy objectives. For this reason, it is imperative that policy
options for each regulatory area in labor relations be identified and directed towards
reforming regulations and legislations responsive to the enunciated policy objectives.
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
16
IV. POLICY OPTIONS IN LABOR RELATIONS
The identification of policy options is based on the inputs in the roundtable
discussion and the current states of the regulatory areas identified. To make the Code
responsive to the changes in the labor market, options are presented here, clustered
into different policy levels. The policy levels include: firm/enterprise (micro level),
industry/sector (meso level), national (macro level), and global (meta level). The
options listed mean not only appropriate policy actions for the government to decide
on, but also areas in which other stakeholders in the labor market may take initiative,
especially in the effort to improve responsiveness of the Labor Code. Organizing
options into the various policy levels also suggests expanding the scope of
representation and enhancing the forms of interactions in labor relations to cover
areas that may not have been previously covered by the Labor Code or any of the
administrative issuances by DOLE.
Policy issues in the micro level are focused on practices in the micro or small
enterprises including practices not within the scope of the Labor Code or those in the
informal sector. The meso level sees its concerns or problems about labor relations
policy in the differences in terms of processes and interests of the many industries
that operate in the country today. Labor relations policy interventions to some extent
may not be viable in certain industries (e.g., agricultural, mining) and yet valuable to
others (e.g., industrial, telecommunications and manufacturing). Policy issues in the
macro level are those that take into account a great number of people, systems and
institutions that influence the labor relations situation of the country or of the labor
administration or governance system. Policy issues at the meta level go beyond the
boundaries of national concerns. In a much bigger perspective, it deals with
international issues that influence a number of labor market systems such as in the
case of the 2015 economic integration of members of the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN).
The following options are aligned towards the realization of key policy
objectives in each of the regulatory areas in labor relations.
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
17
On Labor Organizations
Considering the consistently declining rate of union density, the following
options have been identified to promote the right to self-organization and to make the
process of organizing more accessible including to those in the informal economy.
Table 1. Policy Options on Labor Organizations
Policy Level
Firm/Enterprise
Policy Options


Make 20% requirement for independent unions in
Article 234 directory, not mandatory, or completely
remove minimum membership requirement in Article
234
Recognize continuous union membership when an
employee transfers to another company
Industry/Sector

Enable/institutionalize multi-employer organizing such
as craft unionism8 or industry unionism9
National


Reduce required number of affiliates for federations
Empower trade union centers to issue charters
Global

Encourage affiliations of national unions or federations
with international trade unions such as the International
Trade Union Confederation10
Explore the nature of representation of such affiliations
For national unions or federations to look at possibilities
for bilateral union agreements towards multinational
union collaborations


Craft unionism refers to a trade union combining workers who are engaged in a particular craft or skill
but who may work for various employers and at various locations (Craft unionism, 2013).
9
Industrial unionism refers to a trade union that combines all workers, both skilled and unskilled, who
are employed in a particular industry. At the heart of industrial unionism is the slogan “one shop, one
union” (Industrial unionism, 2013).
10
The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) is the largest trade union federation. Its primary
mission is the promotion and defence of workers’ rights and interests, through international cooperation
between trade unions, global campaigning and advocacy within the major global institutions. The ITUC
represents 176 million workers in 161 countries and territories and has 325 national affiliates
(International Trade Union Confederation, 2013).
8
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
18
On Collective Bargaining and Negotiations
With the steady decrease in union membership, the collective bargaining
coverage rate likewise continues to decrease. Exploring other options for bargaining
will increase the coverage rate which to a considerable extent need not be dependent
on the number of union membership.
Table 2. Policy Options on Collective Bargaining and Negotiations
Policy Level
Policy Options
Firm/Enterprise

Explore workers associations’ negotiation with local
government authorities for security of tenure in the
place or routes where they conduct their
business/work11
Industry/Sector

Enable/institutionalize multi-employer bargaining12 or
sectoral/industry-wide bargaining13
National

Explore prospects for national bargaining between
federations and employer’s association or the
government
Global

Strengthen partnerships and coordination among
national trade unions of ASEAN member countries for
possibility of collective bargaining with the employer
sector within the ASEAN region
Bitonio, 2012.
Generally the term “multiemployer bargaining” refers “to all situations in which two or more
independent employers bargain or negotiate jointly, through an agent, committee or association, with
one or more labor organizations representing employees of the several employers, with respect to
wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment” (Rains, 1954, cited in Anonymous, 1967).
13
Sectoral/industry-wide bargaining is a term denoting collective bargaining conducted between a
sectoral union and a corresponding organization on the employer side. Bargaining at the sectoral level
normally takes the form of negotiation on grievances, bargaining with a view to reaching agreement in
order to conclude a sectoral agreement and negotiation on managerial decisions (European Foundation
for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2009).
11
12
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
19
On Dispute Settlement Mechanisms
To address the decreasing rate of disposition in labor cases, including
recognition of other forms of conflict management and prevention, policy options
(Table 3) have been identified to facilitate and strongly advocate the use of voluntary
modes of dispute settlement mechanisms.
Table 3. Policy Options on Dispute Settlement Mechanisms
Policy Level
Firm/Enterprise
Policy Options


Institutionalize labor management councils and/or works
councils14 as a preventive mechanism for grievance
handling and driver towards productivity gain-sharing
Promote workplace bipartite cooperation15
Industry/Sector

Explore prospects for industry-based grievance
machineries
National

Harmonize policies in promoting voluntary arbitration
and compulsory arbitration
Streamline the National Labor Relations Commission’s
Rules of Procedure to improve case management and
quality management systems

Global

Explore the possibility of handling grievances for
workers engaged in virtual economies
“Works council” may be defined as “permanent elected bodies of workforce representatives (or
occasionally joint committees with employers representatives), set-up on the basis of law or collective
agreements with the overall task of promoting cooperation within the enterprise for the benefit of the
enterprise itself and employees by creating and maintaining good and stable employment conditions,
increasing welfare and security of employees and their understanding of enterprise operations, finance
and competitiveness” (Carley, Baradel, & Welz, 2005, p. 9).
15
For further explanations on workplace bipartite cooperation refer to Suwarno and Abyoto (2012).
14
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
20
On Strikes and Lockouts
Considering the policy outcome on strikes and lockouts, the identified options
(Table 4) address components that enable stakeholders, both employers and workers
organizations, to exercise freely their right to peaceful concerted activities, including
the right to strike in accordance with law.
Table 4. Policy Options on Strikes and Lockouts
Policy Level
Policy Options
Firm/Enterprise

Clarify the elements considered in declaring a strike
valid or invalid, especially in consideration of the new
element of “damage to employer” as applied in the
decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Biflex vs.
Filflex (2006) and NUWHRAIN vs. Court of Appeals
(2008)
Industry/Sector

Align coverage of prohibited groups on the right to
strike as identified by the ILO with Section 18 of DO 40G-03 to exclude private security guards and similar
personnel in the private security agencies
National

Align “essential services”16 criterion with the “national
interest” requirement in the exercise of Assumption of
Jurisdiction
Global

Explore possibility of a globalized strike/lockout among
internationally affiliated federation members or
multinational companies for the government to identify
appropriate preventive intervention in light of a
globalized labor economy
“In 1983, the Committee of Experts defined such services as those ‘the interruption of which would
endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.’” The Committee
has considered to be essential services in the strict sense, where the right to strike may be subject to
major restrictions or even prohibitions, to be: the hospital sector; electricity services; water supply
services; the telephone services; air traffic control” (Gernigon, Odero, & Guido, 1998).
16
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
21
V. SUMMARY OF POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
In analyzing the responsiveness of the Labor Code, it is important to examine
the policy coefficients that influence policy outcomes. These coefficients are the policy
objectives (input), the policy formulation (process), and the policy interventions
(output), including policy outcomes themselves (feedback). Policy options are
presented to address the gaps identified in the course of examining the policy areas
in labor relations. These options address the lack of responsiveness of the Labor Code
to the changes in the labor market.
The policy options identified are clustered into key recommendations on a
general perspective with the goal of improving the responsiveness of the Labor Code
particularly on labor relations. The key recommendations are: (1) alignment of the
provision of the 1974 Labor Code, as amended, with the fundamental guarantees of
the 1987 Philippine Constitution; (2) harmonization with international conventions and
other labor-related instruments; (3) expansion of the coverage of employment and
employment relations, to include the promotion of gender equity and equality in the
definition of employment relations; (4) recognition of the emerging forms of work
arrangements and work representations with consideration for gender-specific
requisites; (5) integration of voluntary modes of practices and partnerships between
workers and employers; and (6) configuration of more streamlined dispute settlement
systems.
Echoing the recommendations identified in this paper, the Philippine Labor and
Employment Plan 2011–2016, by way of review and assessment, unequivocally
commits to the following: (1) respond to labor market realities through policy reforms
and by aligning labor and social legislation with the 1987 Constitution and international
treaties and ILO conventions in a sound and realistic manner; (2) provide an enabling
environment for the observance of the constitutionally protected rights of all workers
particularly their right to freedom of association and collective bargaining and the right
to participate in the policy making process and in other venues for dialogue and
cooperation based on the spirit of mutual benefits; (3) improve labor adjudication in
the country by ensuring transparency, efficiency and integrity in the labor dispute
settlement system and transforming the traditionally conflicting and litigious labor
relations system towards one that incorporates the tenets of social dialogue, such as
free exchange of information, consultation, negotiation and collective bargaining; (4)
provide an environment for more inclusive tripartism and social dialogue to make
representation of interests of sectors more broad-based and highly participatory,
through a policy track that affords consultation and broad-based participation to
include not only the social partners in the Tripartite Industrial Peace Council; and (5)
promote venues for social dialogue particularly at the plant/firm, industry and local
government levels.
To conclude, this paper has put forward: (a) a framework for analyzing the
interrelations between labor relations policy objectives, policy interventions and policy
outcomes; (b) an understanding of the policy context and available alternatives; and
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
22
(c) policy recommendations that would advocate the immediate reform of the Code.
This paper echoes the urgent call to reform Book Five of the Labor Code, as amended,
to make it responsive to the many changes that have transpired in the labor market
extensively and particularly affecting labor relations.
The fast pace of change in the global economy is changing the work
environment, thereby necessitating a need to review labor relations
systems.
--Nieves R. Confesor, DOLE Secretary, 1992-1995 (2010, cited in Ofreneo, 2010)
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
23
REFERENCES
1974 Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended. Presidential Decree No. 442.
1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.
Anonymous. (1967). The status of multiemployer bargaining under the National Labor
Relations Act. Duke Law Journal, 558-592. http://scholarship.law.duke.
edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2101&context=dlj
Azucena, C. A. (2010). The Labor Code with comments and cases (Vol. 2, 7th ed.).
Manila: Rex Book Store.
Baccaro, L. (2003). What is alive and what is dead in the theory of corporatism. British
Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(4), 683-706.
Biflex Phils. vs. Filflex Industrial & Manufacturing Corp. G.R. No. 155679. December
19, 2006.
Bitonio, B. E. (2008). Labour market governance in the Philippines: Issues and
institutions. Manila: International Labour Organization Subregional Office for
South-East Asia and the Pacific.
Bitonio, B. E. (2012, November). Industrial relations and collective bargaining in the
Philippines. DIALOGUE Working Paper No. 41. Geneva: Industrial and
Employment Relations Department, International Labour Organization, and ILO
Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.
Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics (BLES). (2009). 2009 Yearbook of Labor
Statistics. Manila: DOLE.
Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics. (2012). 2012 Yearbook of Labor Statistics.
Manila: DOLE.
Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics. (2013a, April). Current Labor Statistics.
Manila: DOLE.
Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics. (2013b, July). Current Labor Statistics.
Manila: DOLE.
Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics. (2013c, October). Current Labor Statistics.
Manila: DOLE.
Cacdac, H. L. & Audea, T. E. (2005, July). The state of Philippine voluntary arbitration.
Paper presented at the Roundtable Research Conference sponsored by the
Department of Labor and Employment Institute for Labor Studies.
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
24
Carley, M., Baradel, A., & Welz, C. (2005). Works councils: Workplace representation
and participation structures. EIRO Thematic Features. Retrieved December 5,
2013, from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/other_reports/works%20
councils_final.pdf
Confesor, N. R. (2010). Imperatives in a new world order. In R. E. Ofreneo (Ed.),
Balik-tanaw, bagong pananaw: Essays and writings on the 75 years of the
Department of Labor and Employment (pp. 183-185). Manila: Department of
Labor and Employment.
Craft unionism. (2013). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved December 5, 2013,
from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/141609/craft-union
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). (2010). Labor and employment policy
reforms and program implementation for the first 100 days of President
Benigno S. Aquino III Administration. Retrieved from: http://www.dole.gov.
ph/files/First%20100%20Days%20with%20additonal%20reports%2014%20O
ctober%202010%2011am.pdf
Department of Labor and Employment. (2012). The Philippine labor and employment
plan 2011-2016: Inclusive growth through decent and productive work. Manila:
DOLE.
Department of Labor and Employment. Department Order No. 107-10, s. 2010.
Department of Labor and Employment. Department Order No. 40-03, s. 2003.
Department of Labor and Employment. Department Order No. 40-G-03, s. 2010.
Department of Labor and Employment. Department Order No. 40-H-13, s. 2013.
Dunn, V. (1981). Public Policy Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Erickson, C. L., Kuruvilla, S., Ofreneo, R. E., & Ortiz, M. A. (2001). Recent
developments in employment relations in the Philippines. Retrieved October
2013, from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cbpubs/2/
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. (2009).
Sectoral/industry-wide
bargaining.
Retrieved
from
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/SWEDEN/ANCHOR-CENTRALF-OumlRHANDLING-SE.htm
Executive Order No. 523, s. 2006.
Executive Order No. 97, s. 2012.
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
25
Farnham, D., & Pimlott, J. (1995). Understanding industrial relations. London: Cassell.
Fashoyin, T. (2003). Social dialogue and labour market performance in the Philippines.
DIALOGUE
Working
Paper
No.
14.
Retrieved
from
http://natlex.ilo.ch/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/documents/
publication/wcms_100413.pdf
Gernigon, B., Odero, A., & Guido, H. (1998). ILO principles concerning the right to
strike. International Labour Review, 137(4), 1-64. Retrieved from
http://www.ilo.int/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---normes/documents/
publication/wcms_ 087987.pdf
Herrera, E. F. (2010). Do trade unions have a future? In R. E. Ofreneo, (Ed.), Balik-
tanaw, bagong pananaw: Essays and writings on the 75 years of the
Department of Labor and Employment (pp. 205-211). Manila: DOLE.
Hince, K., & Lynch, J. (1997). Labour relations and tripartism: the relevance of the
Philippines model to the micro-states of the South Pacific. In T. Bramble, W.
Harley, R. Hall, & G. Whitehouse (Eds.), Current Research in Industrial
Relations – Proceedings of the 11th AIRAANZ Conference (pp. 153–163).
Retrieved
from
http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/departments/Strategy%
20and%20Human%20Resource%20Management/Airaanz/old/conferce/pdf/hi
nce.pdf
Imperial, G. S. (2004). Understanding Philippine labor policies. The Philippine Review
of Economics, 41(2), 37-42.
Industrial unionism. (2013). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved December 5, 2013,
from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/287192/industrial-union
Institute for Labor Studies. (2011). Tripartite Labor Code Reform Project Proposal.
Manila.
International Labour Organization. (1948). ILO Convention No. 87 concerning freedom
of association and protection of the right to organise.
International Labour Organization. (1949). ILO Convention No. 98 concerning the
application of the principles of the right to organise and to bargain collectively.
International Trade Union Confederation. (2013). About us. Retrieved December 5,
2013, from http://www.ituc-csi.org/about-us
Joint Foreign Chambers of Commerce of the Philippines. (2012). Second anniversary
assessment forum of Arangkada Philippines: Realize the potential. Makati City:
The Arangkada Philippines Project and the American Chamber of Commerce of
the
Philippines,
Inc.
Retrieved
from
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
26
http://www.investphilippines.info/forum/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/
arangkada-assessment-2013.pdf
Kochan, T. A., Katz, H. C., & McKersie, R. B. (1986). A Strategic Choice Perspective
on Industrial Relations. The Transformation of American Industrial Relations
(pp. 3-19). New York: Basic Books.
Kuruvilla, S. (2006). Social dialogue for decent work. In D. Ghai (Ed.), Decent work:
Objectives and strategies (pp. 175-215). Geneva: International Institute for
Labour Studies. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/
167/
Macaraya, B. M. (2001). The Philippines: Workers’ protection in a new employment
relationship. International Labor Organization. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.
org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---dialogue/documents/
genericdocument/wcms_205376.pdf
Macaraya, B. M. (2005). Labor market and industrial relations environments: Policy
issues and options in a global economy. Philippine Journal of Labor and
Industrial Relations, 24(1&2), 1-32.
Macaraya, B. M. (2013, July). How relevant is the Philippine labor code in an economic
regime called globalization? Paper presented at the 59th Anniversary Lecture
Series, University of the Philippines School of Labor and Industrial Relations.
Macaraya, B. M., & Ofreneo, R. E. (1993). Structural adjustments and industrial
relations: The Philippine experience. Philippine Labor Review, 16(1).
Miller, E. F. (1971). David Easton’s political theory. Political Science Reviewer, 1, 184–
235.
NUWHRAIN, Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 163942.
November 11, 2008.
Ofreneo, R. E. (2010). Globalization and unionism. In Ofreneo, R. E. (Ed.), Balik-
tanaw, bagong pananaw: Essays and writings on the 75 years of the
Department of Labor and Employment (pp. 195-203). Manila: DOLE.
Ofreneo, R. E. (Ed.). (2010). Balik-tanaw, bagong pananaw: Essays and writings on
the 75 years of the Department of Labor and Employment. Manila: DOLE.
Republic Act No. 10396. (2013). An act strengthening conciliation-mediation as a
voluntary mode of dispute settlement for all labor cases, amending for this
purpose Article 228 of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise
known as the “Labor Code of the Philippines” .
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
27
Republic Act No. 9481. (2007). An act strengthening the workers constitutional right
to self-organization, amending for the purpose Presidential Decree No. 442, as
amended, otherwise known as the “Labor Code of the Philippines” .
Republic Act No. 9285. (2004). Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Act of 2004.
Sale, J. P. (2011, November). Labor market governance in the Philippines: wages,
unions, CBAs, SEs, and employment (Some preliminary data, findings and
explanations of competitive and collaborative governance). Paper presented at
the Asian Regional Conference, Philippine Society for Labor and Social Security
Law, School of Labor and Industrial Relations, University of the Philippines.
Sale, J. P., & Bool, A. C. (2012). Labor market governance in the Philippines: A case
of collaborative or competitive governance? Paper presented at the 16th ILERA
World Congress of the International Labour and Employment Relations
Association, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Sale, J. P., & Sale, A. B. (2013, April). Labor market transitions and flexibility, unions
and collective bargaining, and labor disputes in the Philippines: convergence
and divergence. Paper presented at the 8th Asian Regional Congress of the
International Labour and Employment Relations Association, Melbourne
Convention and Exhibition Centre, Australia.
Sibal, J. V. (2004). A century of the Philippine labor movement. Illawarra Unity: Journal
of the Illawarra Branch of the Australian Society for the Study of Labour History,
4(1), 29-41.
Sicat, G. P. (2004). Reforming the Philippine labor market. The Philippine Review of
Economics, 41(2), 1-36.
Sicat, G. P. (2012, July). Reform of Philippine labor policies. A working text presented
during the President Edgardo J. Angara Fellowship Lecture, University of the
Philippines School of Economics.
Soriano, R. Y. (2010). ECOP in the next 30 years. In R. E. Ofreneo (Ed.), Balik-tanaw,
bagong pananaw: Essays and writings on the 75 years of the Department of
Labor and Employment (pp. 221-229). Manila: DOLE.
Stigler, G. T. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. The Bell Journal of Economics
and Management Science, 2(1), 3-21.
Suwarno, S., & Abyoto, K. W. (2012, July). Partnership at work: The case of Indonesia.
Paper presented at the ILERA World Congress, Philadelphia, USA. Retrieved
from
http://ilera2012.wharton.upenn.edu/RefereedPapers/Suwarno
Sutanto.pdf
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
28
Usui, N. (2012). Taking the right road to inclusive growth: Industrial upgrading and
diversification in the Philippines. Mandaluyong City: Asian Development Bank.
World Bank. (2013, July). Philippine Development Report: Creating more and better
jobs. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/
document/EAP/Philippines/PDRFullReport.pdf
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
29
ANNEX
Number of Cases Handled by Type of Case
Number of Cases Handled
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Preventive Mediation Cases
Voluntary Arbitration Cases
Original Compulsory Arbitration Cases
SEnA Request For Assistance
2011
2012
2013
Source: BLES, 2009; 2012; 2013a; 2013b; 2013c.
PATRIWIRAWAN, 2015
30