LABOR UNIONS remain crucial in forwarding workers’ welfare, yet legal challenges surrounding their cause persist. With the general prevalence of top-down decision making that prioritizes the interests of upper management, Filipino workers who unionize continue to demand for better wages and working conditions.

In such battles, they turn to the Labor Code to protect their rights; however, the law’s gray areas leave much space for interpretation—one that employers and workers alike try to negotiate through Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA).

Presidential Decree No. 442, Article 4 states that ambiguities in the law must be “resolved in favor of labor.” However, the question of whether just work provisions are truly reflected in labor disputes remains up for discussion.

Meeting in the middle

Higher Education Institutions like the Ateneo often engage in CBA negotiations with their employees’ unions. Last January 16, the Ateneo and the Ateneo Employees and Workers’ Union (AEWU) finalized its 2024–2029 CBA with new provisions, including signing bonuses and a general wage increase of 5.5% per year.

Prior to this conclusion, however, was a lengthy process of negotiations between AEWU and the Administration Panel (AP), with weekly meetings spanning six months.

AEWU President Raymond Tano shares that before negotiations occur, the Union first drafts a proposal that outlines benefits addressing its members’ main concerns.

Among these requests, changes to healthcare and other benefits are typically negotiated with ease due to their shared need between the AP and AEWU. However, Tano shares that difficulties often arise when discussions on “money matters” begin.

According to a memorandum from the Commission on Higher Education, 70% of proceeds from tuition fee increases must be allocated to salaries, wages, allowances, and benefits for teaching and non-teaching personnel.

Yet, the Union and the AP entered their CBA meeting with different computations. The AP stated that the 70% amounted to Php 144 million, while AEWU argued that it should be Php 178 million. However, AEWU ultimately dropped its insistence for the negotiations to conclude.

Tano underscores that the Union is “easy to talk to;” thus, in order to facilitate smoother negotiations, he hopes that the AP will practice greater transparency moving forward.

Aside from fiscal matters, the AP and the Union experienced a misalignment in their CBA regarding the retroactivity of its economic provisions.

While the Union proposed for automatic retroactivity should the negotiations extend beyond six months, CBA Admin Co-chairperson Carmela C. Oracion, EdD pointed out that this clause was missing in their initial proposal. However, as a sign of “good faith,” the AP allowed the Union to ratify its proposal.

With the conclusion of the CBA negotiations for the 2024–2029 cycle, Tano expressed his mixed feelings. “Hindi ako satisfied sa nangyari [sa CBA] pero masaya naman kami kasi at least hindi napunta sa strike. Iyon naman ‘yung hiling ng parehong party eh (I’m not satisfied with what happened with the CBA, but we’re happy because at least, it did not result in a strike. That was what both parties were hoping for anyway.)” he expounds.

Laws and loopholes

Tensions in CBA negotiations reflect the fundamental challenge of policy interpretations in legal systems. Although ostensibly crafted to provide order and clarity, their application often hinges on how they are ultimately understood—either by their technical wording or their claimed purpose.

Whether a House Bill aligns with the Constitution’s ideals can mark tension even before enactment.

In labor law particularly, where regulations must balance the interests of both employees and employers, the choice of legal wording shapes interpretation and impacts Filipinos’ ability to protect their hard-fought rights.

This problem stems from the tension between the laws’ technical wording and the adherence to its intended constitutional purposes. While technical wording ideally provides precision when interpreting statutes, the legislative intent—that is, its broader social objective—may not always fit neatly within the confines of legal phrasing.

Conversely, a law’s intended meaning must align with the country’s broader goals. Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, for instance, guides legislation to “afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.”

Legislation geared toward labor regulation must thus uphold such constitutional frameworks. Ambiguities in the understanding of these powerful laws then call for negotiations, which can tilt power dynamics and work environments depending on their conclusions.

However, strict textualism can lead to unintended outcomes when applied without sensitivity to legal context; narrow clauses may exclude legitimate claims, leaving workers unprotected.

Vague language also intensifies these challenges. Flexible terms like “reasonable” or “fair” are used in hopes of allowing adaptation over time, but these choices can invite conflict during negotiations. Employers and employees might view “reasonable” policies in different lenses—creating disputes that require further negotiation and external mediation to resolve.

In addition, legally ambiguous areas emerge when the law does not clearly account for unforeseen circumstances. Changing work and economic contexts, for example, introduce new challenges that complicate circumstances, such as the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic and its subsequent inflationary pressures.

Ultimately, misinterpretations have especially sensitive implications for unions and labor rights advocates. Narrow legal interpretations on workplace issues may weaken unions’ bargaining rights and ability to secure fair wages. As such, the current situation calls for a more purposive approach to prioritize worker protection and strengthen the ability of labor unions to advocate for better wages.

What remains in good faith

For individual workplace contexts, the CBA remains a critical bridge for shaping labor terms and rebalancing power.

Both workers and employers may represent different priorities in such negotiations, with the former pushing to enhance labor protections, while the latter seeking to enhance productivity. These conflicts redefine both direct working conditions and the long-term path of labor rights. With collective bargaining, labor laws shield workers, setting minimum standards and enabling negotiations.

Tano stresses that these laws safeguard unions’ rights and hold a grave impact on the lives of workers. “Isipin mo kung walang labor laws, ano nalang ang kayang gawin ng mga negosyante sa mga manggagawa? (If you think about it, if there are no labor laws, what will businessmen do to the workers?),” Tano remarks.

Despite this recognition, Tano admits frustration over not securing all of AEWU’s proposed provisions. Nonetheless, he recognizes that the Union’s call for a living wage requires a long process but remains vital for fair labor conditions.

Without strong legal frameworks, proposing a middle ground that satisfies both parties will be met with difficulties given the ambiguity of legislation. Tano emphasizes how transparency, as a pathway to mutual benefit, is vital in strengthening the negotiation process, as it ensures a balanced representation for agreements that support long-term sustainability.

As Philippine policy remains most influential in the operations of societal systems, the responsibility lies on policymakers to create balanced laws adhering to the values enshrined in the constitution that promises a better country for all.

With support for a more equitable society comes fairer bargaining in the workplace, easier access to dispute mediation, and stronger foundations for shared prosperity—cultivating an environment where businesses grow, workers prosper, and the nation is uplifted.