CHRONOLOGICAL EXPOSITION OF ISSUES (under construction)

FROM HIRING TO DEPARTURE
Year 1978  to Year 2003

Figure 1 Shell Refinery Tabangao

I was hired by Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation on 30 May 1978 and worked as  oil movements plant operator on her Tabangao refinery (Figure 1).  On this first year I have noted the perfect attendance scheme which I called perfect attendance scam has already been in placed (Figure 2). This scam had been a yearly endeavor and "awarding" was always ironically done during the annual Christmas Program.  Opponents of the scheme come then go either bribed with promotions or resigned. Discussion over the issue have been part of my yearly job performance appraisal yet Shell would not allow the scheme to be fairly resolved up to year 2000.  On my part I refused to accept the bribe nor quit my job nor weaken my resolve to plea for sanity to the Perfect Attendance Scheme.

Figure 2 sanity on perfect
attendance sought page 1

Figure 3 sanity on perfect
attendance sought page 2

Year 2000

01 January 2000 

PLEDGED NOT TO CUT HAIR

 I took the pledge that I will not cut my hair unless Shell gave sanity to the Perfect Attendance Scheme. This pledge I openly declared to my co-employees, supervisors and managers.  

Year 2001

          September 21, 2001  
          

CBA 2001 was signed.

  

This CBA had been  controversial due to the fact that after a few days  all the union officers were given a fabulous party in Metropolis Manila and after a couple of weeks the union president and another in the the union's executive panel was given a trip to Singapore then to Thailand  in suspected false pretenses of training.  These set of officers became adamant in attending to issues pertaining benefits covered in the CBA like non payment of PRB ( performance related bonus) and threats on union members termination of employment. 

Poem I wrote when the CBA 2001 was signed.
Dedicated to the lower rank in position
members of the union who had been swindled
by leaders who negotiated best for themselves.
Click on the image to enlarge.

Poem translated into English.   This poem draw

ire from concerned union officers  and Shell

management team during those times.

Click on the image to enlarge

Year 2002

April 5, 2002

SHELL WITHHELD PRB PAYMENT 
TO MY RELATIVE

It was already  been agreed  through the Labor Management Cooperation Meeting that Ritchie Coronel an employee who just have resigned and immigrated to the U.S. that he would be receiving his  full Performance Related bonus.  However,  during the payout day management refused  to release the payment when they learned that Ritchie Coronel is my relative and I was assigned by her mother  to receive that PRB payment for him. 

LMC Meeting  dated April 5, 2002
where it was known that Richie Coronel
will receive his full Performance Bonus

May 4, 2002

SON DENIED OF RECOGNITION

My son, Mosses C. Buensuceso, a Shell scholar from high school to college garnered the First Place in the Licensure Examination in the Electronics and Communications Engineers given by the Board of Electronics and Communications Engineering on April 9 and 10, 2002 on Manila, Baguio and Cebu Cities. The Shell management ignored to acknowledge  or congratulate  him for his achievement despite their full knowledge of this event due to the fact that all refinery departments shared a number of gallons of ice cream as celebration of the event.  My son even had asked me when he would be invited by Shell management for a congratulatory meeting.  I responded that management might not invite him anymore as Shell did during his high school and college scholarship awarding  because I myself had not been congratulated by them.

Certificate  of Distinction

June 28, 2002 

UNION OFFICER'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT INQUIRY

Based on these issues and problems by union members in relation with the recent concluded CBA, which the union officers refused and failed to act. HENCE,  I started an inquiry. 

Figure 4 Letter request for the complete
Minutes of Negotiation Meetings

 I  requested through letter from the union secretary copy of the CBA minutes of meeting.   See Figure 4.



On these record of negotiation meetings I noticed three questionable observations.

THAT THE:

1) Minutes of negotiation meetings #34, #37 and #39, where  salary increases and related issues were discussed,  were missing and according to the union secretary those minutes were agreed to be omitted by the union and management panel of negotiators.  This is a violation of the ground rule that minutes of the negotiation meetings shall be duly recorded,  to enable transparency and honesty and avoid cheating and fraud  in the conduct of the negotiation.   See Figure 6.

2) The requirement of two non-officer union member presence on the negotiation meetings to act as witnesses or observers on these negotiations was likewise agreed by both union and management panels to be suspended. This is another violation of the ground rule that there should be  two non officer union member to act as observers to promote honesty, transparency to avoid cheating and fraud in the conduct of the negotiation.   See Figure 7.

3)  The  three Senior Office Staff got 10% maximum rate of salary increase instead of just 9.5% based on their position level. But on account of their 16 years length of service they were given a 10% maximum salary rate increase.  Why the same principle was applied to them but had been denied to me, when in fact  I even had a longer years of service of 24 years?

Figure 6 Ground rule that minutes
of the negotiations shall duly recorded.
see it  along the arrow head line.

Figure 7 Ground rule that two non officer
union member witness shall present in
 the negotiation meetings  as observers

July 13, 2002  

LETTER TO THE UNION PRESIDENT

I wrote a letter to the union president that since the CBA 2001 had been completed, it was just right to put those minutes into writing so that  we could have basis for the complaint we as members of the union are presenting to management.  Besides, it has to be recorded in conformance with the ground rules. However, they refused to write down the minutes.  See Figure 5.

Figure 5 letter request to the union president to

formally write the omitted minutes of

negotiation meetings
Click on the image to enlarge

July 15, 2002

PETITION FOR 
SALARY RATE ADJUSTMENT 

I wrote a petition to  Mr. Bing Veneracion Process Manager, under Mr. Rico Bersamin,  as General Manager, for adjustment of my salary rate increase from 9.5% being a Senior operator to the maximum rate of 10% as what the Senior Office staff got. These three Senior office staff should get only 9.5% being at the same level of Senior operator in Operations who got 9.5%.  However, these Senior staff were given a maximum rate of 10% increase on account of their 16 years of service. I petitioned that I be given the same consideration on account of my even longer length of service of 24 years.  But my petition was ignored and worse no hearing of my petition was ever conducted despite my persistent follow ups,  a violation of my right to due process.   See Figures 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3

Figure 8.1 Petition for salary rate adjustment
page1

Figure 8.2 Petition for salary rate adjustment
page2

Figure 8.3 Petition for salary rate adjustment
page3

November 28, 2002

REDUNDANCY IS A FALLACY

Mr. Rico Bersamin
General Manager
Shell Tabangao Refinery 

Letter of termination of employment effective December 31, 2002 written by   Mr. Rico Bersamin. On this Mr. Rico Bersamin had one month till December 31, 2002 to look  for somebody to replace me  but he was unable to find anyone that was why he wrote  an amended letter dated December 17, 2002 (Figure 11) where he requested me to stay, " in view of the requirement of the  business,"  up to February 15, 2003. These, letters dated November 28, 2002 and letter dated December 17, 2002,  are documentary evidence that prove,  "There existed no redundancy of positions during that time",  because if there was, Mr. Rico Bersamin should have released me at once on December 31, 2002 and should have not requested me to stay "in view of the requirement of the business" until February 15, 2003.

Figure 9 Letter of Termination of Employment
See Figure 11 the amended letter 

November 29, 2002


RANKING PROCESS SHOULD BE AHEAD OF THE LIST  BUT IN REALITY THE LIST EXISTED AHEAD OF THE RANKING PROCESS

List of employees to be terminated received by  DOLE on November 29, 2002. The Ranking process done by Shell supervisors which supposed to be producing this list of employees to be terminated was executed on January 29, 2003.

Hence,  making the " ranking process " DONE  LATER made it subservient to the  LIST already prepared and dictated by Shell.

Figure 10 List of employees to be terminated
Antonio L Buensuceso is already on the list.
This list was already known before the ranking process
by Shell supervisors was carried out.

December  17, 2002  

IN  VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENTS

OF THE BUSINESS

Amended notice of termination written by Mr. Bersamin extending my employment until February 15, 2003 re: in view of the requirements of the business. This clearly showed that the reason of redundancy as an excuse to terminate my employment was devoid of merit for the simple reason that if redundancy exists during those times Mr. Bersamin could not have requested me to stay until February 15, 2002 in view of the requirement of the business.

In fact if there was really redundancy, meaning there are excess operators more than the business needs, Mr. Bersamin should have automatically released me on December 31, 2002 as he said on his letter to dated November 28, 2002 and should have not requested me to stay for another month and a half until February 15, 2003.

Figure 11 Amended Letter of Termination

Year 2003

29 January 2003 

RANKING  FIRST LIST NEXT

Ranking, (basis for determining who among the employees are to be terminated),   was conducted. Note this ranking exercise was carried out after the list of employees to be terminated were already determined and submitted to DOLE  on November 29, 2002.

This is a documentary evidence that the ranking exercise was rigged to conform with the list that have been prepared and determined earlier on November 29, 2002.   This gave credence to the the information relayed to me by some supervisors close to me who asked for forgiveness that they could resist the instruction by their boss that I have to be removed from employment.

Figure 12.1 Ranking report page 1.

Please note the date when this ranking

exercise was carried out.

Figure 12.2Ranking report page 2
note that Antonio Buensuceso is
second to the last on the list

This rigged ranking exercise was an expression of personal wrath of Shell against my person. This personal ire led Shell to embarrass me in front of my co-employees, friends and family when Shell rank me with poorest work performer through the action of Shell supervisors who made the rating.  Shell knew that being an employee like me with high regard for my honor, dignity and integrity would excessively be pained by linking to my person, a rating as poorest work performer.  They did not just say that I am a poor work performer, they even vainly announced it to my extreme distress and embarrassment. The company made the rating written and be known publicly as a reasonable proof to show cause why I should be terminated from employment. These acts Shell gave me so much pain and suffering  even  up to these times.  Shell did not just took me out employment but even deprived me good chances of being employed again due to the blight Shell casted upon my person.

This rigged ranking which Shell made with respect to job performance, the same being announced, written and published is a violation of the 1987 Philippine Constitution Article 2 : Declaration of Principles and State Policies, Section 11 which said the following " The state values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights."  This means that the state gives importance to the dignity of every individual  and safeguard full respect for human rights.  The rigged ranking exercise made by the supervisors who had no other choice but to follow instructions of Shell showed reckless exercise of management prerogatives resulting to violations of my human rights, grave embarrassment to my person, dissolution of my dignity.  Be it that justice be dispensed accordingly and appropriate sanctions or penalty be imposed on the party liable for these violations.

In addition, aside from the fact that subservient supervisors would do the ranking, Shell knew that I could not move to defend myself because of the fact that I had let them knew that the redundancy was illegal and ranking being an exercise in continuance of an illegal act,  consequently making the ranking exercise an illegal endeavor as well.

Shell knew fully well that I could not join, object or participate on this ranking exercise,  because of the simple reason that if I did that I would be falling into a trap;  meaning that should I have participated in the ranking deliberations, this action would  legitimize  the redundancy program which I have declared illegal in the first place.  Shell took advantage of this  situation and  obtusely malign my  honor and reputation.

15 February 2003 

Employment termination

RA 7641 RETIREMENT PAY LAW CIRCUMVENTED BY SHELL TO COMPLY  WITH  

HER OBLIGATION ON PAYMENT 

OF SEPARATION PAY,  UNLAWFUL

Please see Figure 13

Figure 13  Separation Pay document where
my Retirement Pay Accounts are misappropriated
by Shell circumventing RA 7641, subject to penal
provisions under Article 288 of the Labor Code of
the Philippines

In addition, my youngest child  happened to be a Shell high scholar with one year remaining scholarship after Shell terminated my employment.  This remaining one year scholarship, tuition fee and monthly allowances were all taken away from me.

The company policy with regard to scholarship is not alien to me because I have been entrusted in a couple of years by Mr. Butch Bautista, a Shell retiree who like me also lives in Bauan, to receive the monthly allowances for them.  But the same consideration and treatment has been denied from me by Shell.

Year 2004

FEBRUARY 12, 2004 

 POSITION PAPER SUBMISSION TO NLRC

                                      

MARCH 3, 2004   

REPLY and REJOINDER SUBMISSION TO NLRC

Year 2005

Year 2006

December 28, 2006

Labor Arbiter Decision rendered

Year 2007

June 29, 2007 

NLRC resolution promulgated

August 30, 2007 
NLRC resolution on MR 


Year 2008 

March 14, 2008

 immigrated to the US

May 28, 2008

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION  PROMULGATED

July 30, 2008 

Judge
Hon. Enriqueta Vidal,  Clerk of Court
Supreme Court

Philippine Supreme Court 

issued resolution denying the petition

October 30, 2008 

Motion for reconsideration 

for resolution dated 30 July 2008 filed

Year 2009

JANUARY 14, 2009

Judge
Hon. Enriqueta Vidal,  Clerk of Court
Supreme Court

DENY Motion for Reconsideration   WITH FINALITY

Year 2010

Year 2011

Year 2012

Year 2013

October 16, 2013 Notice from Third Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines requiring respondent Atty Raul Quiroz to submit his comments on the disbarment case filed against him.

Year 2014

The TRUTH will set you FREE.