UPDATE ON SALARY INCREMENT

Madam,
goodmorning po,
may we know the updates on salary increment.
thanks

Madam:

I hope that after the meeting of LBPEA officers on Sept. 23 and 24, the real score with regard to the pending Compensation Plan will be made known to us members who have long waited for its implementation.

In the meantime, while the proposal is under reveiew by DBM as explained by management, may I suggest for the posting of the proposed compensation plan in this site.

Thank you very much.

Correct me if I am wrong madam. Do you mean that LBPEA as of date is not formally informed as regards the details of the proposed compensation plan? Is the process in setting the monetary and non- monetary benefits left solely at the discretion of management without the involvement of LBPEA?

If this is the case, what then is the role of the union in respect to these concerns?

I have faith in the capabilities of the leaders that we have trusted to represent us, and I hope that I am not wrong on this respect!

It was specifically emphasized by a Civil Service Officer when a seminar on Civil Service Rules was conducted for the officers of LBPEA that an association of government employees could only negotiate on the non-economic aspects of our benefits.

Unlike private corporations governed by Labor Laws where collective bargaining on all aspects of employment is possible and are expressly provided in the CBA. If you go through our Collective Negotiation Agreement, there was no provision on salaries and other economic benefits.

Our economic benefits are proposed by LBPEA on a separate venue through a Committee. The committee is composed of LBPEA and the management where the benefits we proposed are defended/justified by LBPEA. Remember, all the windfall benefits we received from 2008 up to the present were all requested by LBPEA.

LBPEA's role as far as our salary is concerned is to demand from our management for the implementation of the compensation plan.

We are not governed by the Labor Laws but by the Civil Service Law. Under our charter which I quote hereunder, our compensation plan is subject to periodic review by the Board. The law does not expressly provides that our compensation plan is subject to collective bargaining.

Quote :

SECTION 10. Section 90 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 90. Personnel. — The Board of Directors shall provide for an organization and staff of officers and employees of the Bank and upon recommendation of the President of the Bank, appoint and fix their remunerations and other emoluments, and remove such officers and employees: provided, that the Board shall have exclusive and final authority to promote, transfer, assign or reassign personnel of the Bank, any provisions of existing law to the contrary notwithstanding.

"All positions in the Bank shall be governed by a compensation, position classification system and qualification standards approved by the Bank's Board of Directors based on a comprehensive job analysis and audit of actual duties and responsibilities. The compensation plan shall be comparable with the prevailing compensation plans in the private sector and shall be subject to periodic review by the Board no more than once every two (2) years without prejudice to yearly merit reviews or increases based on productivity and profitability. The Bank shall thereforee be exempt from existing laws, rules and regulations on compensation, position classification and qualification standards. It shall however endeavor to make its system conform as closely as possible with the principles under Republic Act No. 6758.

"The Bank officers and employees, including all members of the Board, shall not engage directly or indirectly in partisan activities or take part in any election except to vote.

"No officer or employee of the Bank subject to the Civil Service Law and Regulations shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law."

I agree with you madam that public employees' union can only negotiate on non economic benefits. EO No. 180, “Rules and regulations that govern the exercise of the right of government employees to self-organize”, is specific on this, thus: Sec. 13. Terms and conditions of employment or improvements thereof, except those that are fixed by law, may be the subject of negotiations between duly recognized employees' organizations and appropriate gov't. authorities.

Given this provision, there is no doubt that government entities covered by Salary Standardization Laws (SSL) are proscribed from negotiating for salary increase because the salaries are fixed by law through the SSLs. In our case however, I am still pondering whether we are included in the prohibition. As you have pointed out, LBP’s amended charter vests to the BODs the authority to approve compensation subject to its periodic review no more than once every 2 years. BODs of the Bank prescribe salary levels. With these premises:
1. Are the compensation plans approved by the BODs considered as “terms and conditions that are fixed by law” as contemplated by EO No. 180, hence not subject to negotiations?
2. Who prepares the compensation plans of the Bank subject to review and approval of the BODs?

Also, it was mentioned that our economic benefits are proposed by the union on separate venue through a committee. It was likewise stated, which I concur, that it is through LBPEA’s defenses and justifications of its requests that we were able to receive windfall benefits from 2008 to date. It is my belief that these windfall benefits are “economic benefits” in nature. This adds to my confusion because if indeed the union cannot negotiate for economic benefits, why then that these windfall benefits were granted from the requests of LBPEA?

Maraming salamat!

There were already three(3)Collective Negotiation Agreement forged between LANDBANK and LBPEA. In all these CNAs, there was never any provision on economic benefits as proscribed under the Civil Service Rule. You try to consult the Civil Service Commission since I cannot satisfy your inquiry on this aspect of the law. It was a top officer of CSC who conducted the seminar to the LBPEA officers in Manila and it was overly emphasized to us.

The benefits which lBPEA requested/proposed to the management were not part of the CNA...kung baga nanghihingi lang tayo para mabigyan. It was never a RIGHT which is demandable and enforceable simply because we do not have any signed agreement between our management and LBPEA on the economic aspects.

Since the issue that I have raised in the previous post concerns the union as a whole (question no. 1), could it be possible that the same be formally referred by LBPEA to CSC considering that the former is the duly duly recognized representative of the members?