GROUP 5: EFFECTIVENESS OF UFESLU AS PERCIEVED BY THE FACULTIES

GROUP MEMBERS: DE VERA, REYMARK ANTALAN, ROWENA BLASA, KAREN DOYOG, JANEAL PASCUA, JAMAECA ALEXIS

SUBMITTED TO: MAAM EVELYN DIZON

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION Unions (Investopedia Financial Dictionary) are established where an employer-employee relationship exists. The basic concerns of unions are the protection of the rights of employees, the advancement of their economic welfare and improvements in their terms and conditions of work. The union of faculty and employees play a big and important role in protecting the rights of workers, may it be regular or contractual. The union is responsible for resolving any conflicts between the principal party and the employee. A union (Baron, 1996) is formed for the purpose of collectively negotiating with an employer (or employers) over wages, working hours and other terms and conditions of employment. Unions also often use their organizational strength to advocate for social policies and legislation favorable to their members or to workers in general. They must be conscious of the need to consolidate their collective strength as a means towards effective participation in decision making on matters affecting their interests and welfare. They must commit themselves to protect the rights and to advance the interests towards decent work, under conditions which enhance creativity, excellence, freedom, justice, dignity, security and equity without discrimination for all academic employees in the University. The concept of trade unions began early in the industrial revolution. More and more people left farming as an occupation and began to work for employers, often in appalling conditions and for very low wages. The labour movement arose as an outgrowth of the disparity between the power of employers and the powerlessness of individual employees. Technology and immediacy of information [On-line] Available http://www.wordIQ.com Unions were illegal for many years in most countries. There were severe penalties for attempting to organize unions, up to and including execution. Despite this, unions were formed and began to acquire political power, eventually resulting in a body of labor law which not only legalized organizing efforts, but codified the relationship between employers and those employees organized into unions. Many consider it an issue of fairness that workers be allowed to pool their resources in a special legal entity in a similar way to the pooling of capital resources in the form of corporations.

Today a government-imposed ban on joining a union is generally considered a human rights abuse. Most democratic countries have many unions, while most authoritarian regimes do not. Gabrarino (2008) on his article FACULTY UNIONISM: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE stated that the academic union movement is part of the growing trend to collective bargaining among public employees in general that has been reinforced by special features peculiar to the higher education industry. Currently concentrated in a handful of states with particularly hospitable legal and social environments, academic unions are slowly spreading into other parts of the nation. But what difference does faculty unionization can make? (Hackett; Pullman, 2009) The most highly unionized sector of Canadian economy is evidently none other than higher education; same is true here in the Philippines. Faculty unionization has shifted power and authority relationships in Canadian universities. Consider due process and tenure the institutional underpinnings of academic freedom. They often take these for granted as norms in Canadian universities. But they were not gifts from benevolent administrations or governments; rather, collective bargaining was instrumental in achieving those (Savage 1994). More generally, (Hackett, 2009) areas of university policy that had once been decided by administration or governing boards became subject to collective bargaining, and administrations have had to cede some of their erstwhile control and authority to faculty (Tudiver 1999). Unionization paralleled faculty involvement in more traditional avenues of governance. Some observers feel that faculty unions have unduly weakened administrations, boards or senates, on the one hand, and grassroots participation, on the other. Roland Penner at the University of Manitoba, argued that creeping legalism is the greatest potential drawback to democracy in the academic workplace, as the availability of legal remedies in the collective agreement and the fiscal ability of the faculty association to take grievances through to arbitration, often at great cost, leads the membership to rely more and more on the associations paid staff and its lawyers and less and less on grassroots grievance committees. Public sector unionism in the Philippines is a relatively recent reclaimed right by government personnel in the country. The reclaiming of such a right cannot be divorced from the gains won by the Filipino people in

ending the 20-year martial rule when through presidential edict the right of public sector employees to form unions was removed. (Taguiwalo, 2009) Taguiwalo (2009) on her article Unionism in the University of the Philippines: A post-Marcos dictatorship gain stated that prior to the 1987 Philippine Constitution, unionism in the public sector except in governmentowned and controlled-corporations was prohibited by Presidential Decree No. 442 or The Labor Code of the Philippines. The rights of Filipino government employees to form unions were recognized only after the overthrow of the Marcos dictatorship. These rights are enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution: Article III, Sec. 8. 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; Article IX-B, Sec. 2 (5). The right to self organization shall not be denied to government employees; and Article XIII, Sec. 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. The State shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. Executive Order No. 180, issued on June 1, 1987 by then President Corazon Aquino spelled out the scope and limits of public sector unionism. Unionism in Saint Louis University: HISTORY The seed of the employees union (Bulatao, 2010) in Saint Louis University (SLU) was planted in July 1962 when some zealous faculty members felt the need to come up with a group to actively involve and participate in the direction of their work conditions. It aimed at cultivating cordial relations among members and with the administration, promoting

high standards of faculty instruction, and encouraging mutual help among members. Thus, the Saint Louis Faculty Club was born on July 29, 1962. The idea was realized through the conceptualization and formulation of the Constitution and By-laws which guided the members of the Club. The Constitution and By-laws were duly certified by Mrs. Eusebia Paraan, then Secretary of the Faculty Club, and which was attested later by Atty. Francicso Reyes, the President of the Club, and then approved by Rev. Fr. Gerard Linssen, CICM, who was then Rector of Saint Louis College, and later became the first President of Saint Louis University. After two decades since its inception, the same spirit must have prompted the non-teaching personnel to organize an association to have a voice from their ranks. This group aimed to represent the SLU Administrative Personnel in all matters affecting their interests and welfare, enhance the employees rights in an atmosphere of democratic and peaceful assembly, help create better working conditions, act as coordinating body for interemployee activities, and foster relationship and fellowship among employees and the school authorities. Thus, the Saint Louis University Administrative Personnel Association (SLU ADMIPA) was born. Upon proper consultation with the interested non-teaching employees, a core group was formed to serve as the Ad Hoc committee with the consent of Rev.Fr. President Joseph Van Den Daelen, CICM. Fr. Van Den Daelen was enthusiastic about the said idea and thereby readily approved the proposal of the core group in November 1983. A few days later, the Constitution and formulated, which were finally ratified on December 17, 1983. There were two parties which competed during the first election of July 1984, namely, the Concerned Employees Party. The Concerned Employees Party unanimously won with Miss Thelma Sagsago of the SLU Libraries, as the first President of the Association. On August 4, 1984, the first elected officers of the Association were formally inducted by Fr. Van Den Daelen during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist at the SLU Chapel. The clearest union consciousness in Saint Louis University happened in 1987, dubbed as the awakening year, when the atmosphere of liberation and the cry for democracy was in the air on the pre-and post-People Power EDSA Revolution of February 1986. The inspiration from this historic event did not exempt our dear SLU community. Thus, the minds and hearts of the

SLU employees were raised to a higher level of oneness a clamor to institutionalize a pro-labor organization. During the early months of 1987, an idea has sparked to unite the teaching and non-teaching employees into one group to represent the basic concerns of every employee based on legal rights, privileges, and benefits provided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UHDR) and the labor expressive 1987 Philippine Constitution. Article 17 of the UDHR states the right to organize and form peaceful assembly or association, and in the laws of the land specifically Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, with reference to Articles 242 to 246 thereof. There were two legitimate labor organizations that were recognized by SLU employees as choices for legal representation, namely; Union of Faculty and Employees of Saint Louis University (otherwise known as UFESLU), and Saint Louis University Alliance of Teaching and Non-Teaching Personnel (also known simply as Alliance), then headed by Atty. Juanito Orallo. In the spirit of democracy and renewal, SLU employees gathered together to cast their votes for the very first Certification Election in Saint Louis University held on September 11, 1987 at the SLU Msgr. Charles Vath Building. And this certification Election was made possible by virtue of the original petition filed by UFESLU before the DOLEs Regional Office (then in San Fernando, La Union) and denominated as IRD Case No. 18-87 MED. In this historic moment of Labor Unionism in SLU, UFESLU won the heart-pounding election over the Saint Louis University Alliance of Teaching and Non-Teaching personnel with the total votes of 490 and 442, respectively. Hence, UFESLU became the first and sole bargaining representative for all the rank-and-file employees of Saint Louis University. There is no more turning back! UFESLU became a legitimate labor organization in the Philippines upon its official registration on July 15, 1987 with the Bureau of Labor Relations, Department of Labor, under Registration Number 11196-LC. In the issued certification, UFESLU is given all the rights and privileges to act as representative of its members. Furthermore, the existence of UFESLU is for purposes of collective bargaining with its employer, and with the right to promote the moral, social, and economic well-being of its members, subject to all provisions of existing laws and regulations relating to labor organizations.

It was from this time that all the UFESLU officers spearheaded by Atty. Rolando Dela Cruz being the Founding President, started further to work hard even by sweat and blood to strengthen the Union and clarify the Unions vision and mission for a better direction. UFESLU as an acronym also stands for: U-Union for, F-Freedom, EEquality, S-Security, L-Liberty, U-Unity. These ideals were inspired by a challenging excerpt from the book, Noli Me Tangere, of Dr. Jose Rizal: you see nothing of the struggle that is being prepared, or the clouds on the horizon; the struggle begins in the field of ideas, but will end in the arena of action. This is the beginning of the UFESLU journey towards a challenging and rewarding history ahead as it aims to be an effective, timely, and responsive instrument for the enhancement of the work condition and professional growth of every SLU employee. Sometime in 1988, the UFESLU Executive Board assigned Arch, Francisco De Guzman to conceptualize, sketch, and finalize a logo for the Union. Arch. De Guzman was then assisted by Mr. Gilbert Sibayan. The colors of the UFESLU logo are red, white, and blue. Red symbolizes courage, love and life. The words pro-labore (Latin word translated as for labor) and UFESLU, together with the triangle shape in the middle are printed in red. This means that the Union focuses itself to courageously safeguard the welfare of SLU laborers in the name of equality and determination, which are expressions of love to life. The white background symbolizes earth and man which signifies a dynamic co-existence. Then lastly, the color blue pertains to the heavens that hovers the triangle and UFESLU which means further that our work in SLU is a sacred one and that while UFESLU seeks Gods protection. It must be an instrument to guide and educate its members about the importance of their responsibility to the value of work. The blue circle symbolizes Gods never ending presence to each worker at Saint Louis University. Principles and Objectives of Union of Faculty and Employees of Saint Louis University (1996-2001) Unionism is not adverse to the objectives of a Christian educational institution the latter having committed itself to the preaching of Christs message of justice, peace and solidarity;

Mans labor is an honorable dimension of human dignity and lends greater meaning to the Biblical mandate to develop and subdue the earth; The protection of the rights of labor proceeds primarily from a m oral fountainhead, namely, that the fruits of labor are a testimony to the willingness of man to be a partner with God in the on-going humanization of the world and that this partnership can be engendered if the dignity of the laborer and the efficacy of his work are amply protected; The social encyclicals of the Church on labor provide the theological framework within which true labor unionism discovers the impetus to strive to transcend the minimum demands of labor legislation of labor mindful of its responsibility to respect the rights of those who may be unduly prejudiced; True labor unionism cannot divorce itself from the historical yearning of the Filipino people for self-determination and self-rule. No less than the UN Declaration of Human rights sanctions this fundamental human aspiration which finds its roots ultimately in the Christian ideal of justice. As such, the evolution of an indigenous leadership inspired by the Filipinos search for self-actualization and motivated by a deep love for his own people forms an integral and important part of a genuinely pro-Filipino labor unionism. UFESLU as the first-ever labor union in Saint Louis University, Baguio City, commits itself to the pursuit and realization of the following: (Collective Bargaining Agreement 2001) i. To establish an organization that will represent the faculty and employees of Saint Louis University in collective bargaining with respect to salaries, wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment; To promote the moral, social, and economic well-being of all the members; To protect and uphold the individual and collective rights of all the members; To foster harmonious and progressive labor management relations;

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

To strive for the adoption of legislation, policies and other measures that will promote the economic, social and general well-being of all the members in particular, and all working class members in general; and To promote the enlightenment of all members with regard to their rights and obligations as union members and as employees, the present labor relations systems, the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), and all other matters that directly and indirectly affect them.

vi.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT OF UFESLU (1996-2001) The union has shown to the satisfaction of the UNIVERSITY that it represents the majority of all the teaching and non-teaching employees of Saint Louis University The University recognizes the UNION as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining agent or representative of all teaching and nonteaching employees of the institution It is the general purpose of this Agreement to promote the mutual interests of the parties and to provide for the efficient and effective operation of the Universitys functions, affairs, and responsibilities toward the maximum realization of the Universitys mission and objectives embodying academic excellence, professional training, and social awareness, under Christian inspiration and within the framework of mutual understanding and respect for each others rights and responsibilities. This Agreement seeks to promote orderly, harmonious, and peaceful relations between the parties, among the teaching and non-teaching employees, and with due regard to existing labor legislation and the welfare of the students of the University The UNION pledges its full cooperation and assistance to the UNIVERSITY in fostering discipline, efficiency, commitment, and devotion to duty of the teaching and non-teaching employees to achieve uninterrupted operations in the University and to sustain the highest level of employee performance consistent with the mission and objectives of the University, the Philippine Constitution, and the Labor Code as amended

The parties to this agreement bind themselves to the principle that any and all existing pertinent laws, rules, and regulations shall be herby made integral parts of this Agreement. Bargaining Power: 1. The university recognizes the union as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all teaching and non-teaching employees within the appropriate unit as defined herein. 2. Should any teaching or non-teaching employee who belongs to the bargaining unit be prompted, transferred, or appointed to any of the excluded positions hereinbefore mentioned, he/she shall be automatically excluded from the bargaining unit; in case of reversion of the same to a non-excluded position, such an employee shall automatically become a member of the Union. 3. The rights of presently employed teaching and non-teaching employees who are not members of any of the two existing unions as of September 11, 1987 and those belonging to the other union (Alliance) shall be respected. 4. The parties agree that there shall be no discrimination, interference, or coercion towards the faculty or employee either by reason of membership or non-membership in the UNION. 5. The UNION shall have the right to exercise the prerogatives of a legitimate labor organization as provided for under the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines as amended, CHED and DECS rules and regulations and other government issuances that affect labor. 6. The UNION expects that the UNIVERSITY agree to extend its cooperation and assistance and exert its best efforts in seeing to it that the provisions of this Agreement are carried out faithfully and without prejudice to the legitimate rights and interests of the UNION and its members.

Benefits:

7. The UNIVERSITY shall provide, for free, an office to the UNION and the equipment and furniture found therein shall be considered on loan to the UNION. Any additional equipment and furniture shall be for the account of the UNION, as these will be UNON property. 8. The period of probation to be accorded to non-teaching employees shall be five (5) months; after rendering five months of satisfactory service, if not terminated, said employees are deemed permanent. 9. The period of probation for teaching employees shall be two years. After rendering two years of satisfactory service, unless terminated, said employees shall be deemed permanent. 10. The assignment of teaching load during regular and summer terms shall be made on the basis of competence, merit, and seniority and part-time faculty employees shall not be hired except in meritorious cases and only if permanent employees shall have full load.

Security of Tenure: 11. Justifiable absences, whether paid or unpaid, shall not be taken against the faculty and non-teaching employees and workers in the evaluation. 12. Substitution for the teaching duties of another shall be optional and the faculty employees who are asked to substitute for another shall be paid their own rates 13. A teaching employee who passes the Bar or Board examination shall be entitled to the corresponding salary adjustment the month following the results of the examination and after submission of the certificate of passing. 14. All members of the bargaining unit shall be given 19% discount on hospitalization. This discount shall be computed on the total amount due and payable to the hospital, with the exception of the following: medicines; fees payable to doctors, professionals and technicians; charges of other hospitals, clinics, or laboratories; ambulance services

Structurally and functionally, a labor union is an institution which involves more than the private or personal interests of its members. It represents organized, institutional activity, as contrasted with wholly individual activity. This difference is as well defined as that existing between individual members of the union. The union's existence in fact, and for some purposes in law, is as perpetual as that of any corporation, not being dependent upon the life of any member. It normally operates under its own constitution, rules and bylaws, which, in controversies between member and union, are often enforced by the courts. The union engages in a multitude of business and other official concerted activities, none of which can be said to be the private undertakings of the members. Duly elected union officers have no authority to do or sanction anything other than that which the union may lawfully do; nor have they authority to act for the members in matters affecting only the individual rights of such members. The union owns separate real and personal property, even though the title may nominally be in the names of its members or trustees. The official union books and records are distinct from the personal books and records of the individuals, in the same manner as the union treasury exists apart from the private and personal funds of the members. And no member or officer has the right to use them for criminal purposes or for his purely private affairs. The actions of one individual member no more bind the union than they bind another individual member unless there is proof that the union authorized or ratified the acts in question. At the same time, the members are not subject to either criminal or civil liability for the acts of the union or its officers as such unless it is shown that they personally authorized or participated in the particular acts. The paradigm illustrates the conceptual framework of the study on how UFESLU effectively deal with SLU management that will make satisfy the needs of its members. The focus of this study primarily the Faculty of all departments in SABM of SLU with its year of teaching service either regular or contractual who have been a member of UFESLU as their prevailing union in the university. The researchers will study on how faculty perceived the effectiveness of the union in terms of benefits of faculty, bargaining power and the security of tenure. In this research the direction of the study is shown in the paradigm. The relationship of the variables is presented in Figure 1. Where the causes of the dependent variables are the independent variables are a) UFESLU and b) SABM Faculty which are either regular or contractual. The effect of the

independent variables is the result of dependent variables which measures the effectiveness of UFESLU in terms of a) Benefits of faculty, b) Bargaining power, and c) Security of tenure. The researchers intend to look into the outputs to a) Finding and Implications of the effectiveness and of UFESLU as well as with a recommendation on how officers of UFESLU improve their functions as representatives of its members.

The research aims to know the effectiveness of the UFESLU as perceived by the SABM faculty, regular or contractual. Specifically it aims to answer the following questions: 1. What is the profile of SABM faculty in terms of: a. Employment status b. Years of teaching service 2. What is the effectiveness of UFESLU terms of: a. Benefits of faculty b. Bargaining power of UFESLU c. Security of tenure as perceived by the faculty in

CONCEPTUAL PARADIGM

Figure 1:

DEPENDENT VARIABLE: INDEPENDENT VARIABLE: FACULTIES OF SABM: Employment Status Years of teaching service THE EFFECTIVENESS OF UFESLU AS PERCEIVED BY THE FACULTY IN TERMS OF: Benefits of Faculty Bargaining Power Security of Tenure

EXPECTED OUTPUT: Findings and implications of the effectiveness of UFESLU Recommendations on how officers of UFESLU improve their functions as representative of its members.

The study was guided by the following hypotheses based on the theoretical framework and come up with ideas that can either be accepted or rejected at the end of this study. 1. There is no significant difference that the UFESLU is implementing its rules, regulations, and objectives in accordance with the laws. 2. There is no significant difference that the faculty as members of the UFESLU receives the right benefits from the union.

CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES

The research methodology and procedures were explained in this chapter. Among those topics included were the research design, and methodology, population of the study, data gathering tool and the treatment of data. Research Design and Methodology The descriptive method of research was used in this study. It is defined as a process that involves collection of data in order to test hypotheses to answer questions concerning the status of the subject under study. Since it describes with emphasis what actually exist such as current conditions, practices, situations, or any phenomena. Since the present study aims to find out how SABM faculty perceived the effectiveness of UFESLU as their representing body in the institution, the descriptive method of research was the most appropriate method to use. Population of the Study This study focuses on the population of regular and contractual employees of SABM specifically the faculty. As perceived from the list from the Deans Office of School of Accountancy and Business Management. The total population of regular and contractual faculty of SABM for 2011 is 116. Because of the time-constraint and limited resources, the researchers opted to study a sample of the total population. Using the purposive random sampling, (Garambas, 2009) Slovins formula1 was utilized to come up with the target sample formula is as follows: n= N __ 1 + Ne Where: n= sample size N= population/ universe E= margin of error *5% margin of error Substituted as follows: n= 116____ 1+ 116(0.05)2 n= 116_____ 1+ 116(0.0025) n= 116____ 1+ 0.29

n=

116__ 1.29 n= 89.92248062 n 90 Using the above formula, the researchers were able to come up with 90 sample population. This is 77.59% of the total universe. We can be sure that a sample always carries with it a sampling error. However for certain types of samples, other degree of precision desired from the sample estimate can be stipulated in advance. In this study, the margin of error allowed is a maximum of 5%. This means that 5% confidence that the estimate approximates the figure obtained through a 100% count. Data Gathering Tool The study will make use of a primary data gathered through the use of questionnaires. The questionnaires will be distributes to the regular and contractual faculty of SABM. An unstructured interview or follow-up will also supplement the study to verify and confirm some responses to the questionnaire floated as the researchers see it fit and needed. Journals, magazines, books, handbooks, website and internet, and other written sources will also be used as secondary sources to enrich the study. Treatment of Data The data will be collected and presented in tabular form. (de Leon, 1992) Simple descriptive statistics like percentages, frequencies, averages and means will be applied to present the result gathered from the data. To answer the problems, frequency and percentage were utilized. % = [( /N)*100] Where: %= Percent as a Rate Index = Frequency of Responses N= Total no. of Responses To determine where the weighted mean will fall according to the five point likert scale2 adopted in the questionnaire and a hypothetical mean range is made with an interval of 0.8 as follows: Range 3.26 4.00 2.51 -3.25 1.76 2.50 Item Scale Interpretations 4 Always 3 Often 2 Seldom

1.00 1.75

1 Never

Chapter III Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data

The following tables and paragraphs present the findings of this study. The findings were analyzed and interpreted using the statistical computation as a basis for interpretation. The discussions include the employment status and range of years of teaching service of a SABM faculty, significant differences on perception of SABM faculty as to the effectiveness of UFESLU in terms of the benefits received, bargaining power, and security of tenure. Respondents Profile: Table 3-1 present the respondents profile. The study includes ninety respondents taken from one hundred sixteen universe or population. Table 3-1 Respondents Employment Status
Employme nt status contractua l regular Total Frequen cy ( ) 40 50 90 Percenta ge (%) 44.44% 55.56% 100.00%

The sample includes forty contractual faculties, fifty regular faculties. As reflected on the table, the highest percentage of the participating respondents is regular faculty which gives 55.56% of the total universe. Either contractual or regular faculty, it is important to know how they perceived the effectiveness of UFESLU. Number of Years in Teaching Service Table 4-1 presents the respondents years in teaching service in the university until second semester 2011. Table 4-1 Respondents Years of Teaching Service
Number of years in service 0-2 years 2.1-5 years Frequen cy ( ) 19 21 Percenta ge ( %) 21.11% 23.33%

5.1-10 years 10.1 above total

27 23 90

30.00% 25.56% 100.00%

The sample includes nineteen faculties that range from zero up to two years of teaching service, twenty-one faculties that range from two point one up to five years of teaching service, twenty-seven faculties that range from five point one up to ten years of teaching service, and twenty-three faculties that range from ten point one and above years of teaching service. Either range of years stated above is important to know on how they perceived the effectiveness of UFESLU. As gleaned from the table from five point one up to ten years has the largest percentage of 30% of total population followed by 25.56% from ten point one and above years, from two point one up to five years which gives 23.33% of the total population, and from zero up to two years which gives 21.11% of the total population. Respondents Familiarity Table 5-1 presents the respondents familiarity with the articles included in the (CBA) Collective Bargaining Agreement of UFESLU. Table 5-1 Respondents Familiarity with the Articles of CBA
Range of Familia rity 0 - 0.99 1.001.99 2.00 2.99 3.00 3.99 4.00 5.00 Total Item Scale Interpreta ions 5 Unfamiliar 4 Slightly Familiar 3 Familiar 2 Moderately familiar 1 Very Familiar frequen cy ( ) 5 16 47 21 1 90 percenta ge (%) 5.56% 17.78% 52.22% 23.33% 1.11% 100.00%

In line with the range of familiarity of faculties to the articles included in the CBA, faculties range themselves from zero to zero point ninety-nine

which categorize to the scale of unfamiliar, sixteen faculties range themselves from one to one point ninety-nine which categorize to the scale of slightly familiar, forty-seven faculties range themselves from two to two point ninety-nine which categorize to the scale of familiar, twenty-one faculties range themselves from three to three point ninety-nine which categorize to the scale of moderately familiar, and one faculty range him/herself from four to five which categorize to the scale of very familiar. It
is important to know the range of faculties familiarity with the articles included in the CBA to assess whether they are reliable with their perceptions to the effectiveness of UFESLU.

As gleaned from the table, most of the faculty respondents are familiar with the article included in the CBA followed by moderately familiar, slightly familiar, unfamiliar and familiar, respectively.

Benefits of Faculty Table 6-1 and 6-2 presents the respondents remarks on the benefits provided by the CBA for the faculties which are deemed to be a member of UFESLU whether they are contractual or regular employee.

Table 6-1 Same Benefits Received

Ratin gs Frequency (f) Regul ar Alway s Often Seldo m Never 4 26 15 4 Contractu al 4 26 11 0 Tot al 8 52 26 4 Regul ar 4.44 % 28.89 % 16.67 % 4.44 % Percentage (%) Contractu al 4.44% 28.89% 12.22% 0.00% Total 7.78% 57.78% 28.89% 5.56%

Total

49

41

90

54.44 %

45.56%

100.00 %

Table 6-1 shows the respondents remark as to the fairness and similarity of the benefits they are receiving whether they are contractual or regular employee.

In line with the fairness and the similarity of the benefits received provided by the UFESLU, four regular and four contractual faculty member with a total of eight perceived that always they received the same benefits, twenty-six regular and twenty-six contractual faculty members with a total of fifty-two perceived that often they received the same benefits, fifteen regular and eleven contractual faculty members with a total of twenty-six perceived that seldom they received the same benefits, and four regular and zero contractual faculty member with a total of four perceived that never they received the same benefits. It is important to know whether UFESLU provides the same benefits for its members in assessment of the effectiveness of UFESLU.

As gleaned from the table, most of the faculty agrees that often the regular and contractual faculties received the same benefits with 57.78% followed by the ratings of seldom with 28.89%, always with 7.78% and 5.56% as to never.

Table 6-2 19% Medical Discount with Certain Exemption

Rating s Frequency (f) Percentage (%) Total 1.11% 4.44% 28.89% 65.56% 100.00%

Regular Contractual Total Regular Contractual Always Often Seldom Never Total 1 1 12 35 49 0 3 14 24 41 1 4 26 59 90 1.11% 1.11% 13.33% 38.89% 54.44% 0.00% 3.33% 15.56% 26.67% 45.56%

Table 6-2 shows respondents remark on how frequent they avail the 19% medical discount with certain exemption as provided in the CBA of UFESLU.

Regarding on how frequent that the faculty member avail the 19% medical discount as provided in the CBA by the UFESLU, one regular and zero contractual faculty member with a total of one perceived always they avail the 19% medical discount, one regular and three contractual faculty member with a total of four perceived that often they avail the 19% medical discount, twelve regular and fourteen contractual faculty member with a total of twenty-six perceived that seldom they avail the 19% medical discount, thirty-five regular and twenty-four contractual faculty member with a total of fifty-nine perceived that never they avail of the 19% medical discount. It is to know whether UFESLU provide the basic benefits that an employee should enjoy as a member of UFESLU; it is to assess the effectiveness of UFESLU.

As gleaned from the table, most of the faculties never avail of the 19% medical discount with 65.56% followed by the ratings seldom avail of the 19% medical discount with 28.89%, 4.44% often avail of the 19% medical discount, and 1.11% of the total population always avail of the 19% discount.

Bargaining Power Table 7-1, Table 7-2, Table 7-3, and Table 7-4 presents the respondents remarks on the bargaining power of UFESLU as a representative of its members to the administration.

Table 7-1 Bargaining of the Salaries/Wages

Ratin gs Frequency (F) Regul ar Always Often Seldo m Never Total 21 19 10 0 50 Contract ual 17 20 1 2 40 Tot al 38 40 10 2 90 Percentage (%) Regul ar 23.33 % 21.11 % 11.11 % 0.00 % 55.56 % Contractu al 18.89% 22.22% 1.11% 2.22% 44.44% Total 42.22 % 44.44 % 11.11 % 2.22% 100.00 %

Table 7-1 shows respondents remarks on how capable UFESLU in representing its members in bargaining the Salaries/Wages of the faculty as members of the UFESLU.

In line with the bargaining of salaries/wages of faculty whether regular or contractual being member of UFESLU, twenty-one regular and seventeen contractual faculty members with a total of thirty-eight perceived that always UFESLU is capable of representing its members in bargaining the salaries/wages, nineteen regular and twenty contractual faculty members with a total of forty perceived that often UFESLU is capable of representing its members in bargaining the salaries/wages, ten regular and one contractual faculty members with a total of ten perceived that seldom UFESLU is capable of representing its members in bargaining the

salaries/wages, and zero regular and two contractual faculty members with a total of two perceived that never UFESLU is capable of representing its members in bargaining the salaries/wages. It is important to know if UFESLU is capable of representing its members in bargaining the salaries/wages of the faculties to the administration; it is to assess the effectiveness of UFESLU.

As gleaned from the table, most of the faculty agrees that often the UFESLU are effective in bargaining salaries/wages of the faculty with 44.44% followed by the ratings always with 42.22%, 11.11% to seldom and 2.22% to never. As seen on Table 7-1, most of the faculties are satisfied with the bargaining power of UFESLU in bargaining salaries/wages of the faculty.

Table 7-2 Number of Hours of Work

Ratings Frequency (F) Percentage (%) Total 32.22% 46.67 % 15.55% 5.56% 100.00%

Regular Contractual Total Regular Contractual Always Often Seldom Never Total 13 24 10 3 50 16 18 4 2 40 29 42 14 5 90 14.44% 26.67% 11.11% 3.33% 55.56% 17.78% 20.00% 4.44% 2.22% 44.44%

Table 7-2 shows the respondents remarks on how capable UFESLU in bargaining the number of hours of work that may be given for the faculty whether regular or contractual.

In line with bargaining of number of hours of work that may be given for the faculty whether regular or contractual, thirteen regular and sixteen contractual faculty member with a total of twenty-nine perceived that always UFESLU is capable of representing its members in bargaining the number of

hours of work that may be given for the faculty, twenty-four regular and eighteen contractual faculty member with a total of forty-two perceived that often UFESLU is capable of representing its members in bargaining the number of hours of work that may be given for the faculty, ten regular and four contractual with a total of fourteen perceived that seldom UFESLU is capable of representing its members in bargaining the number of hours of work that may be given for the faculty, and three regular and two contractual faculty member with a total of five perceived that never UFESLU is capable of representing its members in bargaining the number of hours of work that may be given for the faculty. It is important to know if UFESLU is capable of representing its members in bargaining the number of hours of work that may be given for the faculty to the administration; it is to assess the effectiveness of UFESLU.

As gleaned from the table, most of the faculty agrees that often the bargaining power of UFESLU in terms of giving number of hours of work to the Faculty are effective with 46.67%, followed by the ratings always with a percentage of 32.22%, 15.55% to seldom and 5.56% to never.

Table 7-3 Response to the Problems Raised by the Faculty

Ratin gs Frequency (F) Regul ar Alway s Often Seldo m Never Total 4 25 19 2 50 Contract ual 5 25 8 2 40 Tot al 9 50 27 4 90 Percentage (%) Regul ar 4.44% 27.78 % 21.11 % 2.22% 55.56 % Contract ual 5.56% 27.78% 8.89% 2.22% 44.44% Total 10.00% 55.56% 30.00% 4.44% 100.00 %

Table 7-3 shows the respondents remarks on the response of UFESLU to the problems raised by the faculty being a member of the organization.

Regarding the response of the UFESLU to the problems raised by the its members, four regular and five contractual faculty member with a total of nine perceived that always UFESLU is responding to the problems raised by its members, twenty-five regular and twenty-five contractual faculty member with a total of fifty perceived that often UFESLU is responding to the problems raised by its members, nineteen regular and eight contractual faculty member with a total of twenty-seven perceived that seldom UFESLU is responding to the problems raised by its members, two regular and two contractual faculty member with a total of four perceived that never UFESLU is responding to the problems raised by its members. It is important to know whether UFESLU is responding to the problems raised by its members, it is to assess the effectiveness of the UFESLU.

As gleaned from the table, most of the faculty agrees that often the UFESLU takes the necessary actions to respond to the problems raised by the employees with 55.56% followed by ratings seldom with 30%, 10% to always and 4.44% to never.

Table 7-4 Ability in Getting the Approval of the Administration

Ratings Frequency (F) Percentage (%)

Always Often Seldom Never Total

3 32 14 1 50

4 24 12 0 40

7 56 26 1 90

3.33% 35.56% 15.56% 1.11% 55.56%

4.44% 26.67% 13.33% 0.00% 44.44%

7.78% 62.22% 28.89% 1.11% 100.00%

Table 7-4 shows respondents remarks to the ability of UFESLU in getting the approval of the administration with regards to the request of its members.

In line with the ability of UFESLU in getting the approval of the administration with regards to the request of its members, three regular and four contractual faculty members with a total of seven perceived that always UFESLU is able to get the approval of the administration, thirty-two regular and twenty-four contractual with a total of fifty-six perceived that often UFESLU is able to get the approval of the administration, fourteen regular and twelve contractual with a total of twenty-six perceived that seldom UFESLU is able to get the approval of the administration with regards to the request of its members, one regular and zero contractual with a total of one perceived that always UFESLU is able to get the approval of the administration with regards to the request of its members. It is important to know the ability of UFESLU in getting the approval of the administration with regards to the request of its members; it is to assess the effectiveness of UFESLU.

As gleaned from the table, most of the faculty agrees that often UFESLU is able to get the approval needed from the administration regarding the request of its members with 62.22% followed by the ratings seldom with 28.89%, 7.78% to always and 1.11% to never.

Security of Tenure Table 8-1, Table 8-2, Table 8-3, and Table 8-4 presents the respondents remarks on the capability of UFESLU to represent the employees in the collective bargaining with regards to the security of tenure.

Table 8-1 Security of Tenure

Ratin gs Frequency (F) Regul ar Alway s Often Seldo m Never Total 12 17 20 1 50 Contract ual 9 18 11 2 40 Tot al 21 35 31 3 90 Percentage (%) Regul ar 13.33 % 18.89 % 22.22 % 1.11% 55.56 % Contract ual 10.00% 20.00% 12.22% 2.22% 44.44% Total 23.33% 38.89% 34.44% 3.33% 100.00 %

Table 8-1 shows the respondents remarks on the capability of UFESLU in representing its member in the collective bargaining with regards to the security of tenure of the faculty whether regular or contractual.

In line with the security of tenure, twelve regular and nine contractual faculty members with a total of twenty-one perceived that always UFESLU is capable of representing its members in the collective bargaining with regards to the security of tenure, seventeen regular and eighteen contractual faculty members with a total of thirty-five perceived that often UFESLU is capable of representing its members in the collective bargaining with regards to the security of tenure, twenty regular and eleven contractual faculty members with a total of thirty-one perceived that seldom UFESLU is capable of representing its members in the collective bargaining with regards to the security of tenure, one regular and two contractual faculty members with a total of three perceived that never UFESLU is capable of representing its members in the collective bargaining with regards to the security of tenure. It is important to know the capability of UFESLU in representing its members in the collective bargaining with regards to the security of tenure of the faculty; it is to assess the effectiveness of UFESLU.

As gleaned from the table, most of the faculty agrees that often the UFESLU represent the faculty and employees of SLU in collective bargaining in terms of security of tenure with 38.89% followed by ratings seldom with 34.44 %, 23.33% to always and 3.33% to never.

Table 8-2 Promotion of Moral, Social, and Economical Well Being

Ratin gs Frequency (F) Regul ar Always Often Seldo m Never 6 30 14 0 Contract ual 10 23 5 2 Tota l 16 53 19 2 Percentage (%) Regul ar 6.67% 33.33 % 15.56 % 0.00% Contract ual 11.11% 25.56% 5.56% 2.22% Total 17.78% 58.89% 21.11% 2.22%

Total

50

40

90

55.56 %

44.44%

100.00 %

Table 8-2 shows respondents remarks on how provident UFESLU is in promoting moral, social and economic well being of all the members.

Regarding the promotion of moral, social, and economical well being of the members of UFESLU, six regular and ten contractual faculty members with a total of sixteen perceived that always UFESLU is provident in promoting moral, social and economical well being of all the members, thirty regular and twenty-three contractual faculty members with a total of fiftythree perceived often UFESLU is provident in promoting moral, social and economical well being of all the members, fourteen regular and five contractual faculty members with a total of nineteen perceived that seldom UFESLU is provident in promoting moral, social and economical well being of all the members, zero regular and two contractual faculty members with a total of two perceived never UFESLU is provident in promoting moral, social and economical well being of all the members. It is important to know how UFESLU frequently promote the moral, social, and economical well being of its members; it is to assess the effectiveness of UFESLU.

As gleaned from the table, most of the faculty agrees that often the UFESLU promote moral, social and economic well being of all the members with 58.89% followed by the ratings seldom with 21.11%, 17.78% to always and 2.22% to never.

Table 8-3 Protecting and Upholding the Individual and Collective Rights
Rating s Frequency (F) Percentage (%) Total

Regular Contractual Total Regular Contractual

Always Often Seldom Never Total

4 29 17 0 50

11 22 5 2 40

16 50 22 2 90

4.44% 32.22% 18.89% 0.00% 55.56%

12.22% 24.44% 5.56% 2.22% 44.44%

17.78% 55.56% 24.44% 2.22% 100.00%

Table 8-3 shows respondents remarks whether UFESLU is protecting and upholding the rights of its members. Regarding the protection and upholding the individual and collective rights, four regular and eleven contractual faculty members with a total of sixteen perceived that always UFESLU is protecting and upholding the collective rights of each individual, twenty-nine regular and twenty-two contractual faculty members with a total of fifty perceived that often UFESLU is protecting and upholding the collective rights of each individual, seventeen regular and five contractual faculty members with a total of twenty-two perceived that seldom UFESLU is protecting and upholding the collective rights of each individual, zero regular and two contractual faculty members with a total of two perceived that never UFESLU is protecting and upholding the collective rights of each individual. It is important to know whether UFESLU is protecting and upholding the rights of its members, it is to assess the effectiveness of UFESLU.

As gleaned from the table, most of the faculty agrees that often the UFESLU protect and uphold the individual and collective rights of all the members with 55.56% followed by the ratings seldom with 24.44%, 17.78% to always and 2.22% to never.

Table 8-4 Fostering Harmonious and Progressive Labor Management Relations

Rating s Frequency (F) Percentage (%) Total 14.44% 65.56% 16.67% 3.33% 100.00%

Regular Contractual Total Regular Contractual Always Often Seldom Never Total 7 33 9 1 50 6 26 6 2 40 13 59 15 3 90 7.78% 36.67% 10.00% 1.11% 55.56% 6.67% 28.89% 6.67% 2.22% 44.44%

Table 8-4 shows respondents remarks whether UFESLU is fostering harmonious and progressive labor management relations among all the employees.

Regarding on how UFESLU foster harmonious and progressive labor management relations, seven regular and six contractual faculty members with a total of thirteen perceived that always UFESLU is fostering a harmonious and progressive labor management relations, thirty-three regular and twenty-six contractual faculty members with a total of fifty-nine perceived that often UFESLU is fostering a harmonious and progressive labor management relations, nine regular and six contractual faculty members with a total of fifteen perceived that seldom, UFESLU is fostering a harmonious and progressive labor management relations, one regular and two contractual faculty members with a total of three perceived that never UFESLU is fostering a harmonious and progressive labor management relations. It is important to know whether UFESLU is fostering a harmonious

and progressive labor management relations among all the employees, it is to assess the effectiveness of UFESLU.

As gleaned from the table, most of the faculty agrees that often the UFESLU foster harmonious and progressive labor management relations with 65.56% followed by the ratings seldom with 16.67%, 14.44% to always and 3.33% to never.

REFERENCES
1. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-

232X.1972.tb00033.x/abstract
35

2. http://allupau.multiply.com/

3. http://sfufa.ca/UnionizationMagazineArticle.pdf

4. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/protect/bargaining/aaup-unionism.htm

5. http://www.up.edu.ph/upforum2.php?

i=244&pg=292&pgidx=1&pgmax=2&issue=37

6. Collective Bargaining Agreement Handbook of UFESLU

7. History Handbook of UFESLU

36