FROM HIRING TO DEPARTURE
Year 1978 to Year 2003
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.
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 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. UNION OFFICER'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT 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
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 |
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 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.
|
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
Please see Figure 13
RA 7641 RETIREMENT PAY LAW CIRCUMVENTED BY SHELL TO COMPLY WITH
HER OBLIGATION ON PAYMENT
OF SEPARATION PAY, UNLAWFUL
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, had a son and a daughter both Shell scholars, also lives in Bauan, to receive the monthly allowances for them. But the same consideration and treatment has been denied from me by Shell.
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
No comments:
Post a Comment