Serious labor problems arising from K+12

The K + 12 program in itself is a strategic step in the correct direction. The purpose is commendable and the government's aggressiveness in pushing for its implementation is a bold action, designed to attain long-range goals, which are essential to our total socio-economic development as an emerging tiger economy in Asia. But there is a major, major error that may cause a very serious labor problem. When the government adds two more years in elementary, that could only mean that there will necessarily be two years when nobody will enter high school. Inevitably, thousands of high school teachers will have no one to teach. In no time at all, even college professors shall remain idle. That shall give rise to a serious labor problem. This is no simple matter. It involves the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of teachers.

The government may have a contingency plan to address this problem insofar as the public schools are concerned. Does it? But who shall solve the labor problems that the private schools shall face? The administrators of private schools, notwithstanding their good faith and sincere intentions, if any, may not be ready to grapple with these intricate and difficult problems. Hundreds of thousands of private high school teachers may lose their jobs and source of livelihood. They cannot just be transferred to the elementary level for lack of special training and academic preparation to do the job. Besides, the owners of private high schools of a community may not be the owners of the elementary in the same locality. Everyone will be paddling his own canoe.

Given this grave and imminent problem, what shall the administrators do with the idle teachers? Are they going to be compelled to take a long vacation leave? Are the vacation leaves compensable, even if the teachers concerned have already exhausted their respective leave credits? Should management undertake a redundancy or retrenchment program? Is the problem arising from the implementation of the K+ 12 an adequate basis to declare that such a situation legally give rise to a redundancy? And, if so, would it constitute as an authorized cause to terminate employment under Article 283 of the Labor Code? Should the teachers just wait and pray that this development may not directly dislocate them? Or, should they make a preemptive move now?

In the implementation of the manpower reduction program via a redundancy scheme, should the criteria be last in, first out? Should the criteria be performance or academic credentials? Should faculty members handling junior and senior years be the ones chosen to be separated, if they have shorter tenure, instead of those assigned in the freshman and sophomore years who have longer tenure? Are the faculty concerned going to be consulted? Or, is the exercise of the judgment to terminate employment to be deemed an exclusive prerogative of management? Is this not involving the rights, interests and benefits of the faculty, and thus they have the constitutional right to participate in the decision and policy-making? Should management move alone or should they consult the affected teachers?

If there is a union, should the matter be better addressed in the grievance machinery? And if it is not resolved through the grievance system, shouldn't it be referred to voluntary arbitration, if the union and management are unable to resolve the matter within seven calendar days? Could this dispute be said to partake of the nature of an unfair labor practice? If so, would this be a proper subject of a notice of strike? In the event of a likelihood of a strike or an actual staging of a picket, shouldn't the Labor Secretary assume jurisdiction over the dispute or certify the case to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration? Isn't a strike too bad considering that there is an innocent third party involved, the students, who are supposed to be the customers and object of the education process?

This government is going to face a national crisis if the bureaucrats in both DepEd and the DOLE would not be proactive enough to address the problem now, with a sense of urgency, and with minimum damage to all concerned. This issue should have been anticipated during the planning stage for implementation of the K+12 program. But with all the water under the bridge by now, all the stakeholders in the education sector should spend time amongst themselves and try hard to crack this nut immediately. School administrators should not wait for the union to strike. They should convene a multi-sectoral assembly, parents, teachers, students and the entire community now. There is no substitute to a solution that is jointly agreed on by all parties, instead of being imposed by a government which is neither willing nor ready to address this problem frontally, and immediately. 

Any hesitation and equivocation is bound to yield far-reaching consequences. The government should act now.