The Weekly Sillimanian

Strikes and Bargains: Uncovering the labor disputes of SUFA and the SU Admin

By Kaela Aidelynne Orcullo and Allianah Junnice Bolotaulo

The Silliman University Faculty Association (SUFA) has always played a pivotal role in promoting the interests and well-being of its members. However, its relationship with the university administration has been historically contentious. From the onset, both have found themselves on opposing sides during negotiation processes.

Since SUFA was formally organized,  there have been at least 13 deadlocks and notices of strike, three of which led to actual strikes. The persistent challenges in reaching an agreement between both sides are evident.

Timeline of the disputes

SUFA was established in June 1979 in response to the termination of faculty members who opposed the mandatory 13th month pay exemptions imposed under former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s administration. Due to their protests against the university, faculty were laid off without prior consultation. 

On Sept. 25, 1980, SUFA associated with the National Alliance of Teachers and Allied Workers and requested the Ministry of Labor and Employment for a certification to become the sole bargaining body within the university. The certification was granted after favorable election results on March 30, 1982 which officially made SUFA the exclusive bargaining union for the university’s faculty. 

The first Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiations commenced in March 1983 and concluded by July of the same year. The inaugural CBA was then signed on April 2, 1984, establishing a formalized negotiation process between the faculty and the SU administration.

The first recorded strike occurred in 1991 following a deadlock during negotiations. In the following years, the CBA negotiations faced similar outcomes. However, in 1993 and 1996, only a deadlock and a notice of strike took place. It was not until 1997 that another strike occurred.

Within the years of negotiation processes from 1995 to 1996, SUFA became an independent union, allowing them to operate autonomously without affiliations from any larger labor unions or organizations. This means the union has the freedom to make decisions without influence from outside sources and is given authority to negotiate on behalf of its members with legal recognition.

Negotiations during the years 1998, 2001, and 2004 ended similarly with deadlocks and  notices of strike, but not resulting in any actual strikes. In 2006, a grace period wherein no deadlocks took place was declared following the assumption of the SU presidency of Dr. Ben Malayang III. The adjustment period allowed the university to adapt to a new presidency and continue negotiations as well as address concerns without deadlocks and a strike transpiring.

However, conflicts resumed once again in the following years. In 2009, 2011, 2014, and 2016, more deadlocks and notices of strike occurred. Two decades after the 1997 strike, another one took place in 2017 due to the same circumstances—the administration and SUFA did not reach an agreement on salary raise. Then SUFA President Prof. Jan Antoni Credo raised that the administration’s counteroffer was unacceptable to the union and that their demands were not detrimental to the university. 

Among their demands are an across-the-board salary increase, improvement of retirement pay, and several other benefits. The administration’s negotiating panel led by chief negotiator Atty. Besario stated that SU cannot sustain SUFA’s demands, prompting the union to go on a three-day strike. The strike ended after SUFA and the administration settled to an agreement that included salary increase, a provision of Productivity Enhancement Incentive to faculty and staff, improved retirement pay, and other bonuses. 

In 2019, Secretary of Labor and Employment Silvestre H. Bello III intervened in the negotiations, assuming jurisdiction to resolve the conflicts after a deadlock, a notice of strike, and a strike. The official took control of the negotiations and made the decision to resolve the conflicts themselves. SUFA was directed to not proceed with the strike and return to work instead. Shortly after in 2021, another deadlock and notice of strike was released but there were no repercussions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Drawing the deadlocks 

A deadlock occurs when both parties fail to reach an agreement despite exhausting all proposals during negotiations. This has been a recurring issue in SUFA’s discussions with the SU Administration.

The CBA between the union and university administration lasts for five years. In the third year, a negotiation takes place with a renegotiation occurring two years after. The agreement includes a process of negotiating the terms of employment in a contract. A union, representing the employees, negotiates with the employers for matters such as salary, work hours, and benefits. 

In the current deadlock situation, SUFA already lowered a number of its demands in hopes of the administration improving their offer. However, with the administration already at the limit of its own parameters, refusing to move beyond the 70-percent minimum Tuition Fee Increment (TFI)  proceeds for faculty, the offer stood as unacceptable for the union. 

SUFA President Jonathan Te accused the administration of “negotiating in bad faith,” asserting that their proposals lack a solid basis. 

“What they’ve been doing is that they’ve been treating [the TFI] as the maximum, so it’s very hard for them to move and improve [for the] other askings of the union because they are also projecting an amount which to us is very small,” he said. 

Furthermore, Te expressed that the negotiations should be based on audited financial statements that indicate how the university is performing financially instead of mere projections. This is also stated in the Labor Code of the Philippines, Art. 242, Subsec. C.,  wherein audited financial statements should be the basis of a CBA. 

“We’ve been asking them to go beyond it because there are other sources of income in the university and it does not mean that the university should increase tuition fee. There is no need,” Te stated.

The deadlock signifies that both parties are unwilling to reconsider concession. A notice of strike is filed by the union and submitted to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). 

As per the NCMB, the notice may be filed with unfair labor practice acts, gross violation of the CBA, or deadlock in collective bargaining as grounds. In essence, it is an announcement of an upcoming strike given to the employer and mediator. A 30-day cooling-off period follows after, during which negotiations can resume with the board mediating. 

Should there still be no middle ground, the union may hold a strike vote wherein a favorable majority indicates a forthcoming strike seven days after the result has been reported to the board. Hence, it takes a total of 37 days to officially conduct a strike to avoid any technicalities. 

A strike is an organized form of protest arranged by employees when wanting concessions from employers. During a strike, work among faculty members is ceased, thus, all classes also come to a halt. 

In an academic setting, the work stoppage is described by Te as the “ultimate weapon.” He said, “It’s to somehow give power to the workers because if there is no work, there is no operation.”

Although a strike empowers the union to advocate for reforms, an assumption of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) is generally viewed as an undesirable resolution, as it removes control from both parties.

As per the DOLE Department Order No. 40-H-13,  the assumption orders the immediate return of employees to work while the employers “resume operations and readmit all employees under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.”

For Te, the assumption is “not something that any union wants to happen” as it “removes the whole process of negotiation” between parties with one uninvolved figure resolving the dispute. 

“The [DOLE] would come in and tell the workers that there is no strike, but we would always challenge anything like that because it violates our constitutional right to be able to strike,” he said.

SUFA side: Updates on current negotiations 

On November 18, 2024, SUFA filed a Notice of Strike for Unfair Labor Practices with the (NCMB) referred to as Day 0 for the countdown of an impending strike. The strike vote was then conducted on December 6, 2024, observed by representatives from the DOLE-NCMB Region VII and the DOLE-Negros Oriental Field Office (NOFO). It yielded a decisive result of 230 votes in favor of the strike and only 2 against.

As of writing, SUFA is observing the mandatory 30-day cooling-off period extending from November 18 to December 18, along with the required 7 days after reporting the strike vote results to DOLE-NCMB. 

Despite the measures SUFA is taking, the administration remains persistent on their offers.

SUFA President Te said that the administration’s initial offer was a change in salary structure which he claimed as “very discriminatory to non-tertiary academic personnel.” Since then, the Administration Negotiating Panel withdrew the change in the salary structure and offered an increase of 9%  that would be applied in two years. Te noted that the offers of the administration have continued to change, but its most recent proposal showed that the total financial package reduced.

SUFA Vice President Dr. Karl James Villarmea added that the university’s initial proposal did not put value to the number of years of service the academic personnel have given to SU. 

He said, “Their initial proposal is tone deaf and bereft with care and concern to its rank and file. It is, simply, boardroom engineering.”

Former SUFA President Dr. Victor Aguilan also raised the administration’s statement on a need for tuition fee hike if there is an across the board salary increase in favor of SUFA’s demands.

“A tuition fee increase because of our proposal for a salary raise is a threat. The students can ask why they are paying for tuition but also an energy fee. Tuition fee is not the only surplus the university has. There is the cafeteria, there are the surpluses from the operation of dormitories,” he said. 

Among SUFA’s central arguments is the financial viability of their demands. Te pointed out the consistent excess of the university that attained a total of 250 million over the past two years and holds a reserve of 700 million. Despite this, the administration still claims financial incapability. 

“It would be very hard for us to negotiate knowing that they never showed to us that our demands would result in a situation in which the university would stop operating,” he said

Villarmea also emphasized that the union disagrees with SU’s interpretation of pertinent laws, and thus the reason why SUFA filed Unfair Labor Practice against the university. He then added that by being a Christian (Protestant) Institution, there are a couple bars that the administration must hurdle, one of which is moral.

“In my mind, the administration miserably failed to adhere to the basic moral tenets and ethical demands of our Christian faith.”

Aguilan additionally stressed that the administration’s approach to the negotiations has been uncompromising, questioning their adherence to RA 6728, which mandates that 70-percent of tuition fee increase proceeds belong to the employees. 

Te stated that this percentage, however, is treated by the administration “as the ceiling rather than the floor”, limiting their adaptability to address the union’s demands. 

Te further affirmed that SUFA is not asking for ‘everything’ reserved due to having some funds already labeled as restricted. 

“What we want to happen is that instead of all the excesses going immediately to the general funds, to the reserves, a portion can be allocated for the benefit of the union. For the benefit of the academic personnel.”

Last January 16, 2025, SUFA continued to update its union members by holding a Kapehan in front of the East Quadrangle.

Admin side: Updates on current negotiations

The SU administration aimed to implement pay increments among employees based on the salary grade. This meant that increase in salaries would depend on the job structure, academic achievements, and productivity of faculty. With this proposal, however, not all members would receive the increase. Nonetheless, the administration manifested being open to discussion.

Dr. Mae Brigitt Bernadel Villordon, interim assistant vice president for academic affairs, said that they wanted “to elevate the salaries of our faculty comparable to other universities” in their first proposal on salary grade. However, SUFA did not agree to the proposal. 

  Moreover, Villordon said that their way of improving the salary of faculty is “equitable,” given that the percentage scheme will be based on the last basic pay, following their offer on salary grade.

On the same matter, Atty. Marie Chielo Ybio, chief university legal counsel, said, “One of the primary reasons is we want to improve and we want to maintain the salary differentiation of the faculty.”

For Villordon, the across-the-board (ATB) salary increase proposed by SUFA is “not an advantage” since an equal increase will be given regardless of rank. She further explained that the administration’s percentage scheme gives the premium on items included in the increase. 

As mandated by the law, 70-percent is already allotted for salaries and benefits of teaching and non-teaching personnel. It is up to the university whether to give beyond the required percentage and where to get the additional funds needed for the union’s requests. 

During a kapehan session on Nov. 27, 2024, SU President Dr. Betty Cernol-McCann said that going beyond the 70-percent tuition increment would “put us in a bind as a university.”

Moreover, she said that the ATB salary increase may result in increases in tuition for all year levels. 

In terms of compliance, Ybio said, “We would say that we are compliant. We are regulated not just by CHED, not just by the department of education, [but] we’re even regulated by the NCMB. From time-to-time, we are required to report the grievances that, if any, that we have catered or processed in the university, there are a lot of government agencies that regulate the university.”

She added, “So compliance really is a non-negotiable for the university because if we would not be compliant, then we will also run the risk of having our licenses revoked.”

Additionally, Ybio said that the university has reported its audited financial statements wherein the revenues, expenses, and other related matters are specified to the Bureau of Internal Revenue and to the Securities and Exchange Commission. “These documents would attest to which areas the corresponding figures would be allotted to. In other words, the documents speak for themselves,” she said. 

With the current cooling off period, Ybio shared the university administration’s statement, “The administration is fully aware of its remedies under the law. It wishes to exhaust these remedies as the situation may warrant.“

On the possibility of a strike, Villordon remains hopeful on the negotiations.  “We don’t want to disrupt the classes of our students. And I think the studentry is the most important client of the university,” she said. 

As the cooling-off period progresses, both SUFA and the administration remain at odds over financial transparency and salary allocations. Whether a resolution can be reached without further disruption to academic operations remains to be seen.

Keep Up to Date with the Most Important Silliman University News

By pressing the Subscribe button, you confirm that you have read and are agreeing to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use