Summer Loading

So summer is just a few months away. The Administration is allegedly having problems on how much to spend in case it pursues its plan to go to Palawan (?). (Nakakainggit!) However, the faculty members are having problems on where to get money to spend during the summer because of the yearly problem on summer loading.

To solve this problem on summer loading, the UNION submitted several suggestions (please see below).

The answer of the SLU Administration to these proposals? NONE

These proposals were given last year. Yet up to this time, the SLU Administration has not given any answers to solve the problem on summer loading. Hanggang kalian tayo magtitiis?

So kung titingnan po natin, puwede namang ma-solve yung problema sa summer loading dito sa loob ng University. Pero, mukhang sa labas na naman ng SLU eto mabibigyan ng solusyon. Nag-iisip tuloy ako…The SLU Administration is depriving many of its teaching employees their rightful salaries (nine units) during summer. Mayaman naman ang SLU!!! Napakakaunting bagay, hindi man lang nila maibigay…

So here are the proposals submitted to the Administration to solve the summer loading:

1. Decrease the minimum class size during the summer term. The minimum class size should be decreased from thirty -five (35) to a MAXIMUM of twenty-five (25) students in each class.

At present, SLU claims that thirty-five (35) students should be the minimum class size for the summer term for a “break-even” situation in terms of expenses and salaries of teachers. However, in the past years, when the total enrollees of SLU for each semester is lower, SLU allowed even fifteen (15) or twenty (2) students for the summer classes. Ironically, at the moment when the enrollees at SLU have dramatically increased, the number of students for each class during the summer term has increased.

2. Maintain a thirty-five (35) student MAXIMUM for each class (all classes) during the summer term.

This means that each class (all classes) during the summer term should have a MAXIMUM of thirty-five (35) students. Logically, no class then has more than 35 students.

3. Averaging

During the summer term, some classes have full fifty students (50) but some classes also have less than the SLU imposed thirty-five (35) student-for-each-class. Since some classes already have 50 students, the classes with less than 35 students should not be dissolved. With this, the need to fill the class to a maximum of 35 students is already solved with the “excess” of other classes.

4. Paid summer in-service work

Faculty members will be required to do summer work such as curriculum development, syllabi upgrading, research work, module making, and other possible work related to their teaching. This summer work will be given equivalent units.

5. Return to the old system of assigning permanent general faculty members for each of the colleges.

Before globalization, general education teachers were permanently assigned to specific colleges. With this, there was no problem on summer loading since the Deans of the colleges were obliged to offer subjects for their general education teachers during the summer.

For instance, before globalization, a general education math teacher is permanently assigned in the College of Natural Sciences (CNS). He/She was always given full nine units during the summer term since the Dean of the CNS had to offer basic mathematics subjects for the summer so that his/her general education math teacher would have something to teach.

At present, general education teachers are now placed under the supervision of a specific college (ex. CHS, CICS). But there is nothing wrong of putting specific general education teachers in specific colleges so that the Deans of the specific colleges have to see to it that his/her general education teachers have something to teach during the summer. But the supervision and evaluation of these general education teachers stay with their mother college (ex: CHS, CICS).

6. Close coordination with the mother college of general education teachers on the subject offerings during the summer term.

At present, the different colleges decide on what general education subjects to offer during the summer. Such that these colleges are not knowledgeable on what subjects to offer so that the general education teachers will have full summer load.

This could be solved when the Deans of the different colleges coordinate with the mother college (ex. CHS, CICS) of general education teachers to discuss subject offerings during the summer.

7. The problem on NSTP

During the summer term, NSTP classes are offered to first or second year students with a class reaching 100 students. These classes of 100 students each are usually held for the whole morning or the whole afternoon. With this set-up, summer load for general education teachers will be greatly lessened since most of the students who are supposed to take basic subjects during the summer are enrolled in NSTP. Most students would only be free then in the morning or in the afternoon which set-up reduces the number of subjects they take for the summer.

In the past, ROTC was offered regularly every Sunday of the semester. There should be no reason why the same set-up should be applied in the present for the NSTP.

This may be done even while at present there are still unresolved issues in the giving of NSTP loads to teachers. Last time we heard, there are still no written guidelines on the selection and rotation of NSTP teachers. In fact, many teachers attended NSTP seminars and are therefore qualified to teach.

8. Allow incoming freshmen to enroll for summer

First year students of some colleges are fully loaded and over loaded during their first semester in SLU like the College of Nursing and the College of Natural Sciences. If some of the basic subjects are offered during the summer for these colleges, it would greatly reduce their stress during their first semester. Likewise, there would be additional load for general education teachers for the summer.

Qoutable Qoute

Para sa mga may desk (Sino ba sa SLU ang me mga desk?) ;-)

"A DESK IS A DANGEROUS PLACE FROM WHICH TO VIEW THE WORLD"

Contributions (blogs and monetary)

Dear colleagues in the university

If anybody out there wants to contribute to the Kris at Kalasag ( blogs) you can email us at this address: krisatkalasag@gmail.com.

Those who want to give monetary contribution for the printing of the Kris at Kalasag newsletter you can see us personally at Perfecto bldng room 302 or email us and tell us where to pick up your contributions.

We understand your concern and would keep your identity anonymous if you want it that way.

Thank you and more power!

Trivia naman tayo!!!

Did you know that...

a nursing extension of SLU is being put up in the campus of our sister school in La Union (SLC)?

Its construction has started last December. The construction is being done 24/7.

CONTRACTUALIZATION OF SLU COLLEGE TEACHERS

QUESTION:

In general, what law governs the probationary employment of teachers in private schools or higher educational institutions (HEIs)?

ANSWER:

According to Policy Instructions No. 11 issued by the Department of Labor and Employment, "the probationary employment of professors, instructors and teachers shall be subject to standards established by the Department of Education and Culture". Said standards are embodied in Section 75 (now section 93) of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, to wit:

“75. Full time teachers who have rendered three consecutive years of satisfactory service shall be considered permanent. (Emphasis supplied)

The legal requisites, therefore, for acquisition by a teacher of permanent employment, of security of tenure, are as follows:
1) the teacher is a full time teacher;
2) The teacher must have rendered three consecutive years of service; and
3) such service must have been satisfactory.

Now, the Manual of Regulations also states that "a full-time teacher" is "one whose total working day is devoted to the school, has no other regular remunerative employment and is paid on a regular monthly basis regardless of the number of teaching hours" (par 77); and that in college, the normal teaching load of a full-time instructor shall be eighteen hours a week. (University of Santo Tomas, et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., 182 SCRA 371, 376-377, February 15, 1990)

Further, under DOLE-DECS-CHED-TESDA Order No. 1, s. 1996 (February 7, 1996), the college teacher must possess “at least a master’s degree.”

QUESTION:

While the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools (MRPS) requires “three consecutive years of satisfactory service,” for a private school teacher to acquire permanency, may this 3-year probationary period be lowered?

ANSWER:

YES. The law (Art. 281, Labor Code) does not prohibit the parties from lowering the probationary period of three years. The “…parties to an employment contract (may) agree otherwise…” (Buiser vs. Leogardo, G.R. No. L-63316, July 13, 1984)

The lowering of the probationary period is that which is provided in the COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) between the employer and the employees union. So, it is perfectly all right if the CBA will provide for two (2) years probationary period.

QUESTION:

After rendering (2) consecutive semesters or two years as provided in the CBA, will the probationary teacher AUTOMATICALLY acquire permanent status?

ANSWER:

In the case of Cagayan Capitol College vs. NLRC (G.R. Nos. 90010-11, Sept. 14, 1990), the Supreme Court held that “upon the termination of the three-year probationary period (under Section 93, Manual of Regulations for Private Schools), the teacher becomes permanent…on the compliance with the third requisite that the services of said teacher during the probationary period was satisfactory.”

Applying the same principle with respect to a CBA probationary period (for example, two years), the teacher becomes permanent after rendering the two-year probationary period if the services of the teacher was also satisfactory based on his/her evaluation ratings.

To allow the employer to refuse to make the teacher permanent after finishing the probationary period of satisfactory performance, would make the teacher contractual forever. The Supreme Court said:

“It is noteworthy that what determines whether a certain employment is regular or casual is not the will and word of the employer, to which the desperate worker often accedes. It is the nature of the activities performed in relation to the particular business or trade considering all circumstances, and in some cases the length of time of its performance and its continued existence.” (De Leon v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 70705, August 21, 1989. 176 SCRA 615, 620-621)

In another case, the Supreme held the dismissal of an employee after the expiration of his contract as illegal because he has already satisfied the probationary period provided by law. This is the case of A. Bongar vs. NLRC and AMA Computer College, G.R No. 107234, 24 August 1998, where the Supreme Court held:

“It must be noted that the principal cause of the petitioner’s dismissal was the alleged expiration of his teaching contract. This contention, however, is negated by the fact that petitioner, as the record shows, had rendered service for nearly four (4) years. AMA’s contention that petitioner could not qualify as a regular employee for failure to comply with the three-year service rule is likewise unavailing. On this point, we concur with the opinion laid down by the NLRC, to wit:

“If this line of reasoning (which we perceive to be too technical to serve the ends of justice) is adopted in the process of determining the regularity of a teacher’s employment, the possibility of a teacher becoming infinitely non-regular is not too far-fetched to expect. For all that unscrupulous school has to do to negate or render meaningless the rule on probationary employment, is to inflexibly confine the recruitment or employment of its teachers to part-time basis, or to revert as what happened to the complainant herein, an originally full-time status to mere part-time bases to prevent in any way the incumbent teacher from becoming regular, a subtle way of circumventing the Labor Code provisions on probationary employment.” (underscoring supplied)

In Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity (KILUS) vs. Drilon and KILUS vs. NLRC (GR. No. 77629; G.R. No. 78791, May 9, 1990), the Supreme Court held that a casual employee with one year of service of service becomes regular:

“As long as the employee has rendered at least one year of service, he becomes a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed. The law does not provide the qualification that the employee must first be issued a regular appointment or must first be formally declared as such before he can acquire a regular status. Obviously, where the law does not distinguish, no distinction should be drawn.”

In Zosimo Cielo vs. NLRC (GR No. 78693, January 28, 1991), Zosimo Cielo, a truck driver, was employed by Henry Lei Trucking Company. He signed a contract of employment where one of the stipulations was:

“1. That the term of this Agreement is six (6) months from and after the execution thereof, unless otherwise earlier terminated at the option of either party.”

After rendering service from June 30, 1984 to end on December 31, 1984, Zosimo was formally notified of the termination of his services on the ground of expiration of his contract. When Zosimo filed a case with the then Ministry of Labor, the trucking company argued that the contract having expired, it was the prerogative of the trucking company to renew it or not as it saw fit.

But the Supreme Court held:

“The private respondent’s intention is obvious. It is remarkable that neither the NLRC nor the Solicitor General recognized. There is no question that the purpose behind these individual contracts was to evade the application of the labor laws by making it appear that the drivers of the trucking company were not its regular employees.

Under these circumstances, the private respondent hoped to be able to terminate the services of the drivers without the inhibitions of the Labor Code. All it had to do was refuse to renew the agreements, which significantly, were uniformly limited to a six-month period. No cause had to be established because such renewal was subject to the discretion of the parties. In fact, the private respondent did not even have to wait for the expiration of the contract as it was there provided that it could be “earlier terminated at the option of either party.”

By this clever scheme, the private respondent could also prevent the drivers from becoming regular employees and thus be entitled to security of tenure and other benefits, such a as minimum wage, cost-of-living allowances, vacation and sick leaves, holiday pay, and other statutory requirements.”

This pattern of harassment employed by employers has not escaped the attention of C.A Azucena, Jr., a respected labor lawyer and author, who commented:

“ x x x in the great preponderance of cases, the employer’s efforts (of harassment) are much more covert (or hidden) and are generally disguised to escape detection.” (The Labor Code with Comments and Cases, Azucena, 1996, p. 209)


QUESTION:

In SLU, if a teacher has just finished the mandated two-year probationary period and is due for permanency, may the university hire NEW contractuals instead of making the teacher permanent or regular?

ANSWER:

NO. The contractual employee “shall be given priority in case a regular position is available.” [Art. 7, Section 7.13 (a), CBA]. Hence, the university should not hire NEW contractuals.


QUESTION:

In SLU, what is being done to solve this problem?

ANSWER:

This issue has been brought before the attention of the SLU Administration. However, the SLU Administration believes that when the teacher finishes his/her probationary period (two years) with satisfactory performance based on the yearly evaluation, the teacher does not automatically become permanent. The SLU still maintains that it has the management prerogative whether to make the teacher permanent or not. That is why until now, there are many teachers in SLU who have rendered more than two years but are still contractual.

There are now two pending cases before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to determine the legality of the argument of SLU. One case (where the teacher rendered 3 consecutive years) was decided in favor the employee, that is why the employee is now reinstated. The other case, where the teacher has rendered two consecutive years, is still pending.

Printing of the Kris at Kalasag

The time has come for the printing of the hard copy of the Kris at Kalasag. According to one comment by a reader: there is a need to print a hard copy because despite the presence of its blog site not all employees have access to the net and thus can not read the blogs found in the site. The reader even added that he/she is willing to contribute to the cost that will be incurred in the printing. I hope he/she wouldn't mind that I will hold him/her to his/her words. So if he/she is reading this I hope he/she would bring her contribution to Perfecto bldng, room 302. Look for Sir Jops Andaya.

The invitation is also open to our dear friends out there. We hope that you too can and will be able to send or bring your contributions to Sir Jops Andaya at room 302, Perfecto bldng.

We will be looking forward to our working together to keep our fellow employees informed of the issues affecting our dear university. Thank you in advance.

INSIDER STORIES

ABOUT OUR TAXES

So, last December 27, 2008, the UFESLU and the SLU met to discuss the problem about our taxes. By the way, if we refer to SLU , this would refer to Atty. Arnulfo Soriano, Mrs. Evangeline Trinidad, Dr. Noel De Leon and sometimes Ms. Geraldine Sanil. During this meeting, while SLU was represented by a CPA (Mrs. Trinidad) and a lawyer (Atty. Soriano), the UFESLU was also represented by Ms. Alice Lerma, Mr. Edwin Valencia (CPA), Atty. Rigoberto Gallardo (CPA), and Mrs. Elvira Dacayo (CPA) (o di ba!?). With overwhelming proofs and evidences that the UFESLU presented, the SLU Administration was open on the "reclassification" of the economic package as "rice subsidy." With this reclassification, the 12,000 rice susbsidy would be non-taxable. On the scholarship program of an employee, the tuition fee is also non-taxable provided the employee signs a contract with the Administration agreeing on an equivalent number of years for every year of service.

On the tuition fees of our dependents, the UFESLU presented a similar case at De La Salle Unversity (DLSU) where its dependents are considered as scholars and consequently, the tuition fees of their dependents are non-taxable. All these proposals were submitted to the SLU Administration for its consideration. The UFESLU believes that, with all our proposals supported with BIR Rulings, the SLU Administration decides in favor of the employees. Now, what if the SLU Administration refuses to consider as a scholarship grant the educational benefit of our dependents despite a clear BIR Ruling in our favor? Are the 1,400 union members willing to voice their disagreement outside of their work places?

ON THE PHILHEALTH

Upon a check with the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (Philhealth), the individual contributions of all SLU employees were last updated in March 2006. So for nearly two years, our individual contributions were not updated. However, SLU regularly remitted our contributions to Philhealth in "bulk." Ibig sabihin, lahat ng pera na binayad natin eh ibinayad ng SLU sa Philhealth pero hindi sila nag-submit ng listahan sa Philhealth kung sino yung mga nagbayad. In a clearing meeting about this issue, the SLU Administration blamed the employees for not doing the initiative in checking the status of their contributions with Philhealth. So tayo daw ang may kasalanan. SLU never admitted any lapses because of this unfortunate incident. The solution? Some individuals are planning to file a "class suit" with Philhealth to determine the culpability of SLU. Para sana hindi na maulit eto...interested to join?

DELOADING OF SOME IPR FACULTY MEMBERS

A certain faculty member of the Institute of Philosophy and Religion (IPR) was not re-hired "allegedly" because of the end of his contract. He has been with the University for three (3) continuous years. This faculty member filed a case with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which decided the case in his favor. Nanalo siya. In the decision, he may be actually reinstated or reinstated merely on payrol. Ang ginawa ng SLU, he was actually reinstated by giving him a load of 24 units. Ang problema, seven (7) IPR faculty members were deloaded and their loads were given to him. The UFESLU cried foul over this action. SLU ang may kasalanan na tinanggal nila yung teacher tapos nung ma-reinstate eh babawasan ng load yung iba?

In a Clearing Meeting, the SLU Administration believes that its action is legal. So, the case will surely go outside of SLU para malaman kung sino talaga ang tama. Napapansin ninyo, dumarami ang mga kaso laban sa SLU? Hindi sana eto mangyayari kung aaminin "nila" ang kanilang mga pagkakamali. Sino ba naman tayo para hindi marunong magpatawad.